TimZ

I'm currently running the wrap on my turbine housing, which is also Jet-Hot coated (the 2000 degree stuff). While this admittedly isn't a very scientific approach, I have not seen any problems yet. I'm guessing that the thin-walled header tubes are more susceptible to the thermal fatigue problems than the cast turbine housings, just because the header tubes flex more with temperature changes, and probably see higher stresses when the engine moves around on its mounts.

Wow. I normally don't look in this forum that often, just because I wasn't planning on doing any body mods in the near future. Glad I decided to look. Excellent discussion. As far as getting rid of the fumes, have you considered doing a side exit exhaust? Instead of trying to get rid of the aero wake, get the fumes out of the wake instead...

quote: Originally posted by Frank280z: "Take your car to a dyno test in your area. Make dyno runs with and without the e-RAM activated, and take a picture of how it was installed. There's the catch. Notice that they have you do dyno runs with and without the device activated, not with and without it installed. Big difference. Also, I noticed that this was how they did their dyno comparisons. Now it's a little clearer how they showed a gain on a boost regulated turbo motor. It's more likely that they are losing power with the unit deactivated, and breaking even (or maybe just losing less) with it on. Since they don't show baselines without the thing installed, there is no way to know. I have a hard time believing that their little fan won't be a restriction in the system when it is turned off.

quote: Originally posted by Mikelly: ...As long as I'm not spending it on some whore, my soon to be wife is happy as a clam! LOL ... I was in Amsterdam last year on business, and my wife said that I could have all the heroin I wanted, but no prostitutes... ...sorry - it just reminded me of that

quote: Originally posted by Owen: You only have to be careful not to add any air or water, just like any hydraulic system. So I would still use it, I would not recommend using the DOT5 silicone fluid for the brakes. I have never heard a single good thing about DOT5 in a performance braking application. The attached article above alludes to it, but even though the silicone fluid has a higher boiling point, it doesn't behave very well as it starts to get near it. The reports that I had read mentioned that some of the chemicals used in the fluid start to outgas before the boiling point is reached - resulting in a spongy pedal (at best). I've heard this account too many times to ignore it. Here are a couple of other sites to check: http://www.muller.net/karting/docs/technical/brfluid.html http://www.rpmnet.com/techart/fluid.shtml http://www.panteracars.com/motul.html The last one is a source for the DOT5.1 fluid - I thought that they used to have an article about DOT5 buried there, as well. DOT5 (silicone) could be a reasonable solution for the clutch hydraulics, due to the lower temperature requirements, but I would never use it in my brake system.

We are still talking about the clutch here, right? I was considering converting the clutch hydraulic system over to silicone, since I live in the north, and the car sits most of the winter. Silicone is supposed to be better for that. I was only going to change over the clutch, though. After reading that article, I'll think I'll skip the hassle of converting, and keep the glycol based stuff. Thanks. Really, for the clutch, the temperature requirements are much lower, and you don't need to use a high temp fluid. Some of the DOT4 fluids are more resistant to water, so that would be a good reason to use DOT4, but I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about finding an expensive high temp racing fluid for the clutch.

Not trying to be a smart ass here, but have you checked your rear tire pressures? I had these identical symptoms, and I originally thought the worst. The effect was quite pronounced. Embarrassingly, it turned out that one of my rears had lost pressure due to a slow leak. When I brought everything back to correct pressures, the problem went away.

Generally, you don't want to run a lot of oil pressure to the turbo - this is the main reason that Turbonetics recommends a -3 oil line to the turbo - it is restrictive enough that the pressure to the turbo gets reduced substantially. As far as the rest of the motor, the high relief pressure will help if you have additional restrictions in series with the pump, like an oil cooler, as you mentioned. I believe that the main reason that the high flow, high pressure pump was offered was for high revving race motors that ran much larger than stock main bearing clearances. The higher pressures were necessary in this case to ensure that the crank was still able to float on a cushion of oil, without starving the rest of the motor of oil. If you are running stock or near stock main bearing clearances, you can probably get by just fine with much lower oil pressures, like around 50psi (stock was 45psi as I recall). Just remember that the regulation takes place at the pump - if you make sure that you have 45-50psi after the oil cooler, and you are running stock bearing clearances, you should be fine. If you are running an oil thermostat, just make sure that the oil is getting routed through the cooler when you check.

The TEC uses the same tach output scheme as the MSD ignition. There are a few different methods for getting the tach to work with the MSD - any of these should work for the TEC, as well. I am currently simply using the MSD tach adaptor, and that works fine. There are probably cheaper solutions out there, but I already had the MSD adaptor, and it is effective for me.

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner - since I'm a TEC guy, the SDS questions are usually better covered by the numerous others on the board. I do know of a definite potential problem with the A/C car, though (BTDT). If you mount the pickup between the A/C compressor and the crank pulley, the problem can arise when the A/C clutch is turned on. There is a solenoid inside the A/C pulley assembly that rotates with the pulley. When the solenoid gets energized, it creates a strong rotating electromagnetic field, which is in the same plane as the crank pulley, and not in any particular phase relationship with it. If the pickup sees this, it will scatter the timing signal, and the engine will run very erratically, if at all. I think that somebody already mentioned it, but the alternator can cause similar problems, as can electric fans, if they are too close. As you might imagine, this is a very confusing scenario to debug, especially without that piece of information. Luckily there is something that you can do. The pickup is sensitive to the polarity of the magnetic field, so it's orientation can make a difference. On the TEC, the manual's recommended mounting orientation of the pickup is to have it 'pointing' towards the center of the pickup wheel. This is the absolute worst orientation for the A/C problem. I had to rotate the pickup's orientation 90 degrees, so that the pickup points toward the front, and gets its signal from the side of the wheel, as in Scottie's drawing. This greatly diminished the problem, although every now and then, I do still get a little sputter with the A/C on. It used to be completely undriveable, though, so this is a huge improvement. Also, I have my TEC configured to cut out the A/C solenoid when I'm running any boost at all, so I don't ever get this problem at full throttle. Also, Scottie's mounting config puts the pickup a bit farther from the A/C compressor, so that should help (I'm assuming that his drawing is a side view, and not a top view). Actually, it's probably the best compromise for isolation from any of the potential magnetic field sources. The only problem that I can see is that it might be difficult to find a good, solid, vibration free mounting point at that location, since you'd be mounting to the oil pan, somehow. I'm guessing that this probably won't be nearly as big a problem with the SDS, though, since it's using far fewer teeth than the TEC does (3 vs 60).

Lone... If you can find the Ford part number for that fan, I can try to see what info I can find out about it - cfm, current draw, etc... The Ford part number looks something like E69Z-14A464-AA i.e., it should be a three part number.

Excellent point, Scottie. Luckily, you can also find some excellent experience and advise on suspension and brake upgrades on this site as well. Scottie is right - a 300hp Z should be easily capable of honest speeds in excess of 150mph. Not a good time to find out that you don't have enough brakes. This would also be a good time to suggest doing whatever you can to ensure the your driving skills are up to the task, as well. I have no idea what your skill level is, but it never hurts to improve your skills whatever they are (you'll never see a really good driver saying that he doesn't need to learn more). Believe me, even (or perhaps especially) with the necessary suspension and brake upgrades, a 300hp Z can be a handful. You have more than enough power to smoke the tires at ~50mph in a turn, and you won't have much time to figure out what to do if that happens. If you can afford it, there are several very good schools available. If you don't have a huge budget, there are still several low-cost options available. Local car clubs often sponsor 'driving school' events that are reasonably priced. Seeing as how you are in Northern California, you should have no problem finding such events. I'll bet there are people on this forum that could help. Like Scottie said... you should do everything in your power to make sure that you live to enjoy your 300hp Z.

quote: Originally posted by Scottie-GNZ: Tim, no problem not tapping but let me know if the hole is not the same size. Cool. The hole just needs to be small enough that I can still tap it to m8x1.25 after I figure out how much/whether to countersink it. I'm guessing it'll be the same size that he would have drilled it before tapping, anyway.

Wow - impressive group here. Usually, you get half of the people dropping out at the last minute. Here we have people showing up with cash in hand at the last minute. Does anybody realize how unusual that is? [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited February 10, 2001).]

FYI... I received a notice this morning that Scottie had accepted my PayPal payment, so it appears that he was able to upgrade his account. Just thought I'd mention it, since Scottie might still have limited internet access.

Well, so much for mature, open discussion... Somebody needs to either cut down on the caffeine, start smoking again, or maybe just go to bed earlier... Anyway, it's true that in alot of cases, the turbo can make more boost in the higher (lower numerical ratio) gears. However, the magnitude of this effect is greatly dependent on the turbo/engine combination, as well. In general, to get the most repeatable and not coincidentally, highest power readings on an inertia dyno, you really need to be in as high a gear as possible. This is due to several things. Somewhat higher boost for a given RPM is one, as Morgan already mentioned. This effect can be negated to some extent by increased heat in the intake charge, since the intercooler usually doesn't work as effectively without a 60+mph airflow source for cooling. As a result, the longer the run takes, the higher the intake charge temps get. Also, frictional losses through the drivetrain are known to be considerably lower in the higher gears. Probably the most significant reason to use a higher gear has to to with the measurement method itself. The acceleration of the drum is measured by calculating the rate of change (or derivative, if you've had calculus) of the rotational speed of the drum. If you know anything about control systems theory, then you know that differentiating a signal results in a noisy output, and the effect gets worse as the rate of change of the input gets higher. So, if you use a lower gear for your dyno pull, the rate of change of the drum speed is considerably higher, and as a result, your power calculation becomes much, much noisier (i.e., less accurate, and less repeatable). This effect could very easily explain John's account of the Viper seeing a wide range of power outputs, or Morgans pictures of different power outputs in different gears. Also, John's points were well taken re: the interial dyno's sensitivity to flywheel mass, etc. Actually, John, you got me thinking a bit about the underdrive pulley effect. I had always considered the power increases from these to be due to the accessories having less parasitic drag at lower RPM. I'm pretty sure that this is true for the water pump, at least in some cases. I hadn't considered their contribution to the rotational inertia of the engine, but in retrospect they most certainly do contribute to this. Also, John is absolutely correct in stating that the horsepower readings that come from decreased rotational inertia of the drivetrain are not real power increases. You must remember that with an inertial dyno, the relationship between the acceleration of the drum, and the real power output of the engine is actually dependant on the rotational inertia of the drivetrain PLUS that of the drum. Unfortunately, the drum is the only part that you know for sure. For most powertrains, though, the weight of the drum dominates, and the effect of the powertrain rotational inertia is kept to a minimum. This will cause a definite amount of inaccuracy in the power readings, as John contends. Lightened flywheels allow the vehicle to accelerate faster, but it's for the same reason that lightening the body makes the car accelerate faster - less inertia. I don't think that we'll see too many arguments that making a car ligher increases the engine's power. Anyway, the point is, as I believe has already been stated, that inertial dynos can be very repeatable run to run, if the dyno operator understands the limitations of the device. For comparing car "A" to car "B", they are less accurate, but not completely useless. Because, except for extreme cases, the weight of the drum dominates the reading, I would guesstimate that comparisons between cars are still fairly valid, with a window of uncertainty of maybe 5%. In other words, if my car dynos with more than 5% more power than the next guy's it probably actually does have more power.

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: Odd that nobody else has a problem with dyno jets being so inconsistant(?)........ It's very simple math and a drum of known inertia - the measurements are very accurate when done properly - ie. no wheel spin, etc. I was thinking the same thing, Morgan. The inconsistency problems that I had always heard of were associated with the non-dynojet dynos, and had to do with eddy current calibrations, thermal drift, etc. If you have a forced induction system, you do have to be really sure that you get the intake charge temps back to the same starting point between runs, or you can see some very large variations in output from run to run. The biggest problem with the dynojet is that it's difficult to get constant load cell monitoring, although it appears that they are developing a method for holding the rolls at a constant speed with a brake, and monitoring the pressure required to maintain the speed. It seems to me that this would have the same calibration problems that the other dynos have, and would only be good for short-term, relative measurements.

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: Have you used that 225mm clutch from clutch specialties that you were telling me about? If so, fill me in. It's all installed, and ready to go, but the roads here won't be clear of snow and salt for a while, yet. So, it'll be a while before I can tell you anything.

...You do still have the option of taking the adaptor to your favorite machine shop and having it drilled and tapped for the companion flange bolts locally.

quote: Originally posted by idealz: The weather is getting warm here and I am getting the bug again! GRRRRRR.

Scottie - I sent you an e-mail yesterday, but in case you didn't see it, I'm in. I'll send the check as soon as you say 'go'.

Looks like their club must have had a dyno day. You missed a couple others - a purist car whose only mods were 'period correct' that made ~107rwhp (which is fine - sounds like bone stock was what he wanted), and a nice looking 5.7l V8 that made 240rwhp. The first dyno day I went to was with the Ford Motorsports Enthusiast's club. These can be pretty humbling experiences. There was this guy that showed up with a C4 Corvette that was blipping his throttle everywhere he went, and talking smack about how he had twisted wedge heads, a special chip, Borla Exhaust, etc, etc, and had blown away ZR1 Vettes, and Vipers. 250rwhp. He started talking about how there must be something wrong with the dyno, and that it must be reading low. About then, one of the Mustang guys pointed out to him that my 2.8l Datsun had just pulled 120hp more a few runs earlier I'll never forget the look on his face... Anyway - my point was that L28s aren't the only ones that get dissapointing results. Oh - and there are some cool Mustang guys out there...

Ross... Check the 'Interest in a CV adaptor' thread, below. Scottie posted some pictures in that thread.

quote: Originally posted by Andrew Bayley: Tim, Any date on rolling out the Z. I'd like to check it out some if you don't mind. I don't know if I ever mentioned it, but I'm working at Lear Corp. at Ford Rd. and Southfield. Let me know. -Andy I'm hoping to have it ready to go by the time the snow melts, and the salt is washed away - probably July . You are more than welcome to stop by anytime - it's mostly assembled in the garage. I only live about 3 minutes from Lear.