TimZ

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: Like I said before, having too much intercooler flow area can be bad - too much can slow the airflow inside the IC enough that the fins aren't adequately mixing the air, leading to large drops in efficiency. While this may be true, I seriously doubt that two _Starion_ intercoolers in parallel will result in too much flow area. From everything that I have heard about them being too restrictive, I would argue that placing them in parallel would result in getting the core flow velocity back down into the realm that the cores were designed for, assuming that Calen's target is around 300hp. ...Of course, I agree that he would need to dump the stock flow meter, and put a bit more thought into the fuel delivery system before he could get to 300hp...

quote: Originally posted by David 280Z: (snip)i'm not going to go all out like he did though..... [/url] That's what you say now.... Speed is an addiction - once you start it's really hard to stop .... Your friend's setup looks very nice - looks like he's paid a lot of attention to details.

quote: Originally posted by Ross C: Their were some comments on this thread or another about 'closed loop' being v. good. I'm not in such agreement. Closed loop (correct me if this has changed) is based on your ECU trying to maintain A/F at 14.7 stoich right? Lately their's quite a bit of evidence that at cruise engines (varies among builds) can tolerate up to 17.0 A/F which leads to FAR greater mpg/efficiency, so unless you can alter the closed loop 'target' ratio I wouldn't get to excited about it. I'd instead be progressively altering my cruise/higher vacc A/F while monitoring my O2 sensor and related temps/knock etc. As usual, Ross makes some good points. I'd like to add a bit more on the closed loop thing... Using closed loop feedback can be a good thing, but you CANNOT rely on it to make up for a poorly tuned fuel delivery map. It should only be thought of as a correction for rich or lean trends. The EGO feedback should be one of the last things that gets tuned, especially if you plan to do most of your tuning on the street. The reason for this is that depending on the placement of the sensor (header collectors are a popular place), a number of engine events can go by between the time the exhaust valve opens, and the resulting gasses reach the sensor (this is usually called 'transport delay'). Also, because the slope of the EGO sensor response curve is very steep around stoich, it is difficult to come up with an accurate correction amount for the next cycle, which means that there is usually considerable oscillation that occurs before the correct A/F ratio is obtained. The oscillation can be tamed, but this usually involves slowing down the response so that the A/F ratio 'creeps up' on the desired ratio. Taking all of this into account, it can actually take as long as 0.5 to 1 second for the closed loop feedback to do it's thing. Also, if the feedback is correcting for a fuel map that is not very close, the engine can run erratically and unpredictably during this time. So, the best thing that you can do is make sure that the fuel map is really close for as many of the tunable points as you will be using. In this fashion, the closed loop feedback is doing as little as possible, and generally only correcting for long term errors. When used in this manner, the closed loop feedback is a nice thing to have. As far as I'm concerned, datalogging is absolutely the easiest way to achieve this. It's a fairly simple thing to look at the data after a run, and see EXACTLY what EGO readings you had at every RPM and MAP combination that were used during the run. From this information, it is a fairly straightforward iterative process to arrive at a well tuned fuel delivery curve. Try watching a real time display while you are trying to keep the car on the road and then remembering exactly what happened a few minutes later - it doesn't work very well. Okay, I'll shut up about datalogging now . One other thing - there are systems available that do allow targeting different A/F ratios for the feedback loop in different conditions. The TEC II is one, and I believe that the MOTEC can also do this. Not sure about the Holley or the SDS - I just don't remember.

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: All other things being equal, why would you want a laptop? It's just extra weight/work/hassle! Umm... Three reasons: 1) datalogging 2) datalogging 3) datalogging Really, I can understand SDS proponents not being interested in using a laptop for various reasons, and that's fine. However, Pete has indicated that he IS interested in using datalogging, which says to me that he is capable of operating a PC, and the he understands how to read data plots. Why would you want to discourage this? When you understand how to use datalogs to your advantage, all things are no longer equal.

quote: Originally posted by BLKMGK: Stupid question - "heat transferring liquid"? scca is right - the stock struts were not cartridge inserts - the hydraulic 'guts' were all that was inside, and they had hydraulic fluid in them so that they could function. If you have replacement inserts, however, it is a good idea to fill the tube surrounding the insert with liquid. Otherwise the insert is thermally insulated from the rest of the world, and could run too hot, especially under aggressive use. The liquid serves to absorb the heat from the strut, and transfer it to the casing, where it can be dissipated. It's pretty common for people to use ATF in the tube, which should work fine. The last time I replaced mine, I used glycol-based coolant and water, just like in the radiator. The idea was that the water should be able to absorb more heat, and the antifreeze, along with keeping the water from freezing has rust inhibiting additives. Either should work fine - whatever you are comfortable with.

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: Shocks have nothing to do with braking or holding up weight...... You can call various manufacturers and ask them what the damping rates are, they will tell you. At least I know bilstein will, I assume tokico is as helpfull. Yes, this is true. The springs hold up the weight, and handle the weight transfer. The shock's job is to damp the motion of the sprung mass, and dissipate the energy absorbed by the spring when travelling over bumps, etc. The purpose of the valving is to match the damping to the natural frequency of the suspension. Is it valid, however, for the sake of this discussion, to use axle weights for a comparison criteria when comparing struts from different intended applications. The reason is that the amount of energy that needs to be dissipated by the strut is directly related to the mass attached to the spring/damper system, and the natural frequency of that system. An assumption was made that the natural frequencies are similar in both vehicles. I believe the point that scca was making was that he believes that the MR2 rear suspension's natural frequency is higher (stiffer) than that of the front of a GTI. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to this, but the GTI was the 'sport' version of the Golf, so it's hard to say which was stiffer (the Germans generally like firm rides). As far as asking Tokico - they were less than helpful when I made these same inquiries a couple of years ago, when I was doing this swap. Maybe things are different now. It's always worth a try. Okay... I'm done now... .

quote: Originally posted by Rags: Just picked up a TEC II for my turbo 240 and hava a few questions for the experts. The first is where to mount the sucker in a 71 when the battery is in the stock location? Who has any maps that work with a stock L28t without an IAC? Will the Nissan knock sensor, water temp sensor, throttle position sensor, and O2 sensor work? Any help is appreciated. Joe I've seen them mounted either on the firewall, or on the front left of the engine bay, on the wheelwell (engine bay side, of course) in front of the strut tower. I would not recommend trying to use somebody else's maps, as they are pretty sensitive as to cam profiles, injector sizes, etc. You'll probably spend more time trying to 'straighten out' somebody else's map than you would in starting from scratch. As far as sensors, The water temp sensor should work. Not sure about the TPS - is it a variable resistance type, or just WOT and closed throttle switches? Not sure about the knock sensor - do you know it's characteristics? The O2 sensor will work, however if it's not a 3- or 4-wire type, I'd replace it with one. Sorry I can't tell you more, but I didn't start with the L28t electronics, so when I installed my TEC, I went with the recommended GM sensors. If you have specific tuning questions, I'd be more than happy to help...

quote: Originally posted by scca: the reasoning the mr2 is better is ..... as a car accelerates weight transfers rearward thus a front shock wouldnt be that stiffly valved, also a rabbit cant have near the weight on its front that a Z does. Okay - sorry if I'm being a PIA here but I have a couple more thoughts on this... Yes, the SC MR2 could accelerate somewhat faster. However both cars have to stop, too - right? Max effort braking forces are always higher (at least on production cars) than acceleration. So, when the Golf is doing a panic stop, there will be considerably more weight transferred to the front than is transferred to the rear of the MR2 at WOT. Also, I don't know the numbers, but I'd be really be surprised if the Golf didn't have a higher cg than the MR2. This, of course would make the Golf have greater weight transferred under accel/decel. As far as the weight comparison issue between the Golf and the front of the Z, let's do the math... I was assuming a near 50/50 weight distribution on the Z, which is what most people shoot for, and not at all unreasonable for the modified Z's that grace the garages of most hybridz.org's patrons . Anyway, from the previous post, the Golf has a front axle weight of ~1300lb to ~1460lb, depending on the model year. On a 50/50 ZCar, this equates to a total weight of ~2600lb to 2920lb. I don't think that that is too far off for a first gen Z. Please don't get me wrong - I have no problem with the use of the MR2 strut - more choices are always better. I just see it as more of an equivalent alternative, and I'm just trying to save jeromio some money .

quote: Originally posted by jeromio: So, since the gland nut for the Z doesn't fit the top of the VW carts (even with any of the supplied spacers), then that implies that the way to use these carts is to machine a ring that has the OD of the ID of the gland nut and the ID of the OD of the top of the cart. And also drill out the isolator. AND install the isolator on the strut and then install the whole assembly on the car. This is essentially what I did. As I recall, there was a nylon spacer that came with mine that had the correct id (obviously), and an OD that slightly too large. I just carefully removed material from the OD until it just fit in the strut tube (I think I just used a razor blade - can't remember for sure - it was a couple of years ago). I have the Carerra camber plates, so I didn't have to mess with the isolator, but I did have to make a bushing so that it would fit in the spherical bearing in the plate. I've had no problems since. quote: Where on wrenchhead did you find this info on the gland nut? Are the 84 and 85 carts the same length? Because these 84s I have are really short. The body is over 2 inches shorter than the Z front cart. Set your car type to one of the two, then go to 'Replacement Parts', then 'Shocks and Struts', then 'Performance Gas Shocks - Front'. These will be KYB shocks, but it shouldn't matter. You'll notice in the description that they call out a VW strut tube nut part number. If you go through all of this again for the other model year, you'll see that the strut part# is different, but it still calls out the same VW strut tube nut. I don't know about the lengths of the two struts, but you got me thinking, and I looked up my old receipt from when I bought the struts from Strano's (amazing that I still had it and could find it, huh? ). It turns out that they sold me the BZ1073 strut, which, as it turns out is for the earlier GTI/Jetta/Scirocco. This ought to be the same part that you have. As far as the length goes, yes mine were quite a bit shorter than my strut tube, which I expected. You can make a spacer for it by cutting a piece of Schedule 40 pipe (plumbing section at the HW store) of the appropriate diameter to the length that you will need to get the top of the cartridge body about 1/16" above the top of the tube. I don't remember the exact size, but the OD should be slightly smaller than the OD of the cartridge, and the ID such that the cartridge can sit in it and center itself. Whew - hope that all makes sense.

Okay, I did a little more poking around and found the following: Tokico HZ1093: Fits 85-92 Golf, Golf GTI, Jetta, Jetta GLI (front) (couldn't find a Tokico part# for the earlier Rabbits, but some info on wrenchhead showed that they used the same Gland Nut, although the replacement shock part#'s were different) Tokico BZ1086: Fits 85-86 Toyota MR2 (rear) Same part for SC and na variants Tokico BZ3099: Fits 87-89 Toyota MR2 (rear) Same part for SC and na variants I have no idea as to which Toyota strut actually physically fits the Z, but it's interesting that in both cases, there is no differentiation between SC and na. Just a little more food for thought...

quote: Originally posted by jeromio: So it's the rears! We're making progress. Is it the 85-86 rear MR2, or the 87-89 rear MR2? Okay, I did some poking around, and found the following: '82 GTI: 2100 lb 65/35 weight dist. weight on front wheels ~1350lb '85 GTI 16V: 2250 lb 65/35 weight dist. (couldn't find published weight dist. numbers, so I used the same from '82, assuming that the added weight came mostly from the 16V engine, and the weight dist. probably didn't get better - probably got worse) weight on front wheels: ~1460 lb '85 MR2 (n/a): 2380 lb weight dist. 45/55 weight on rear wheels: ~1310 lb '88 MR2 SC: 2600 lb weight dist 42/58 weight on rear wheels: ~1510 lb Now, can somebody please explain to me why the MR2 rears are that much better of a choice? The corner weight difference between the heaviest GTI and the heaviest MR2 is 25lbs. The lightest GTI actually carries 20 _more_ than the lightest MR2. In fact, all of these numbers are in the ballpark for the front axle weight of a JTR V8 VZ, assuming you've watched your weight somewhat. To answer the original question, though, it looks to me like you would want to look for rear shocks from a supercharged MR2, assuming they actually used different valving. If they didn't, then the GTI vs. MR2 argument looks like a wash to me. ...Sorry if I sound like a troublemaker

quote: Originally posted by Fast Frog: OPPPS! Not entirely true. (snip) The 77 up were all catted and certified for "Calif" emissions; and ran on unleaded gas. B] Nope... STILL not entirely true. Non-California Z's through 1978 had no cats and could use leaded gas. It even says so in the FSM. Somebody will probably correct me now, but I believe that the '79 ZX was the first year that had cats across the board (in the US, anyway).

300 rwhp is right on the edge of what the stock pistons can handle reliably. The pistons can live at this power level, and maybe even a little more, provided you never make any tuning mistakes. The problem with the stock pistons is that the ring lands won't stand up to much detonation. At those power levels, there just isn't much margin for error. The good news is that broken ring lands don't generally cause much additional damage to the engine, as the broken pieces are usually retained by the rings, provided you catch it in a reasonable amount of time. You do still have to replace the pistons, obviously. If you really want to make that much power, I'd personally forego the stock pistons and go straight to forged. The first broken set of stock pistons will end up costing you about the same as a decent set of forged pistons, anyway. The full floating pins are probably not absolutely necessary, unless you plan to do a lot of sustained high rpm driving. SS valves are probably a good idea, though, or maybe ceramic coatings on the face of the stock valves. Again, more margin for errors in tuning. Also, I'll never recommend against using ARP products (always a good idea), but for 300rwhp, the stock rods are plenty strong. If you were going to go with ARP hardware, you might as well go the whole nine yards - ARP main bearing studs, head studs, and rod bolts - it's not that much more expensive. As far as boost levels, you will probably have to run ~12-14psi to get 300rwhp, depending on how well your system is tuned, how well the engine breathes, how efficient the turbo is, etc.

quote: Originally posted by johnc: No 240Z was ever offered in the US by Nissan with a 5 speed, although lots of folks have swapped in 280Z 5 speeds. That may be what's on the 240Z you're looking at. Didn't the dealers offer a retro-fitted FS5C17A (roadster) 5-speed option on the 240's, before the Z 5-speed transmissions were available? Whether it was a dealer option or not, this mod was also done, and the "A" trans was shorter than the later Z 5-speeds. In this case you would have to use the driveshaft from the 240 (assuming that the rear flange would still mate to the 280 diff), and the shift linkage might not line up with the console on the inside. That said, I agree that it's more likely just a retrofitted Z 5-speed. Just something to check for...

quote: Originally posted by pauli: now do the same in a front drive car. the oversteer situation is easy to handle (which is the only safety advantage of fwd that i've found, btw): stomp on the gas. the understeer situation, however... what are you going to do in a turn at speed, turn the wheel more and hit the brakes, hoping the rear will catch up before the front wheels break loose? (put this situation on ice. the results are left to the reader ) or for a more straight forward answer: if fwd is so great, how come there's not a single dedicated race car (to my knowledge) that's only spinning the front wheels? Okay... - at the risk of being burned at the stake for heresy, I will have to disagree (a little)... First off, for dry road performance, I totally agree with everything that's been said so far, and I'm sure that the Integra guys were talking about dry road performance when they said that (most of them probably don't have the balls to try anything else ). However, for racing on deformable surfaces (i.e., gravel, packed snow, etc.) you will be very hard pressed to beat a FWD car, except with AWD. In these conditions, the inherent understeer makes the FWD car much more predictable/manageable, and advanced driving techniques, like left foot braking or the 'Scandinavian Flick' pretty much negate the understeer problem. I had the opportunity to try both at the Bridgestone Winter driving school, and there is no question as to which is faster in this scenario. Because of this, I would guess that you would be hard pressed to find any competitive RWD-only vehicles competing in Pro Rally today. All this suits me just fine, since I'm not even interested in subjecting my Z to snow or gravel - that seems like a perfectly good use for a FWD car to me . Anyway, just wanted to add an opposing viewpoint of sorts - we were starting to sound as one-sided as the Integra guys, and I wouldn't want that...NEVER underestimate the enemy. Okay - flame away...

For silicone hose: http://www.bakerprecision.com/contents.htm Now, I'm a little confused from your description - I assume from the fact that you're looking for silicone hose that it's not all copper pipe from the turbo to the oil pan. Solid copper all the way would not work well - you need something flexible to account for the movement of the turbo due to heat expansion in the manifold. Just plumb the turbine oil outlet with a suitable hose barb, and run the silicone hose (0.5"id min) to the fitting on the oil pan. Make an effort to keep the hose as far as is practical from the hot exhaust pieces. If you are fabricating the fitting on the oil pan, make sure that it is above the level of the oil in the pan.

quote: Originally posted by Ross C: can't you locate it flush w/ the bottom of your tank or lower? Don't see why the need to pressurize it, OE VW unit's and the homemade 12oz. reserve tanks as per JTR etc work fine. Unless I misread and their's another purpose to this other than to just keep the fuel pump/motor supplied under a slosh/long sweeper etc?? The idea behind pressurizing the tank is twofold. First, the return-style regulator (assuming that it's properly located) bleeds off any air/vapor that gets into the secondary tank back to the main tank. Second, keeping the tank pressurized greatly reduces cavitation at the high pressure pump's inlet, and is generally beneficial to the high pressure pump's overall flow capacity. We were talking about a FI turbo setup here, right?

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: Kinsler surge tank 'kit' - $500 and change depending on size, etc. Tank alone - mid-$200 range. Sorry that didn't work out - I knew about the price of the tank - like I said, they aren't particularly cheap. Didn't know about the ~$270 for the rest of it, though - I guess I figured that you would be able to come up with the rest on your own. They were competitively priced for the pump and regulator that I bought (maybe not the absolute cheapest, but close enough for the expertise that they offered), and I have had good dealings with them in the past.

quote: Originally posted by Arif: Still fine tuning my SDS and was wondering what exactly can be done if I decide to take my Z to a dyno shop. For instance can I program the MAP/fuel/ign for different boost settings off of a dyno run? Will it tell me were I'm rich or lean at, etc? Most of the Dynojet shops have the capability to datalog an exhaust gas analyzer, along with engine RPM. I'm not sure if they can log manifold pressure or not. The resulting plot should give you a pretty good idea as to where you are rich or lean. Check with your dyno shop to make sure that they have this capability - if they don't, find somebody that does (if possible). As far as ignition timing, you are kind of on your own, unless somebody else has some ideas. About all you can do is to take a baseline run, then change the timing incrementally, do another run, and see if it helped or not. Of course, you really need to be careful to not detonate. Give yourself enough time between runs to allow the intake air temps to equalize - it's a good idea to check the manifold air temp (I'm assuming the SDS has this input) before starting the baseline, and then make sure that you are at or near this temp at the beginning of each subsequent run. Otherwise, you'll have a very difficult time figuring out what helps and what doesn't - intake air temps can make a big difference in your results on a turbo motor, and can easily mask any changes brought about by tuning the ign/fuel curves.

quote: Originally posted by John Scott: <snip>I have no question that my Mallory 140 can supply enough fuel, but I've been reminded now that I'm seeing some pretty high boost #s, the importance of having 7# over your boost psi. There is no way the Mallory can deliver 23 psi! This is an issue of line pressure overcoming boost, not flow rating. So now I need to shell out another $300 for a pump that can push mid 20 psi, or is there a cheaper alternative? Anyone know what the Mallory maxes out at? JS Well... you're not going to like the answer... As you can see, the 140's output decreases dramatically above 12psi. Looks to me like if you want to run 15psi of boost, you probably ought to be looking for a different pump - sorry. (this would make a great pump for feeding a surge tank, though ) Actually, I'd be willing to bet that the stock zx turbo's pump would flow plenty at 20psi (remember, flow capacity goes up with decreasing pressure). The stock n/a EFI pump might even work. Unfortunately, though, I've never flow tested one to know for sure. How much horsepower are you planning on?

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: I can't find any pre-made fuel surge tanks anywhere, only oil sump tanks........ I just called and checked with Kinsler (they're local for me), and they sell surge tanks in several different sizes, as well as everything else that you would need. They aren't particularly cheap, but they are not outrageous, either. At a minimum, I would recommend buying their catalog (~$10 as I recall) which has lots of information for setting high performance fuel systems, including how to properly setup a surge tank. BTW, I don't have any affiliation with Kinsler, other than being a happy customer ... http://www.kinsler.com (248) 362-1145

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: Maybe I'm showing my stupidity, but what's the difference in where the surge tank is located? Up front, out back, high, low, whatever, it's all the same. As long as you are using a pump in the rear to move the fuel to the front surge tank, then that should work fine. The weight of the column of fuel in the line will create a pressure head toward the rear under hard acceleration, so the rear pump is a necessity to prevent starvation of the surge tank. The best setup that I've seen uses a low pressure pump to fill the surge tank, and a ~5psi pressure regulator in the surge tank to keep it pressurized. This keeps a positive pressure at the inlet of the high pressure pump, and will go a long way toward eliminating cavitation at the high pressure pump's inlet. I haven't checked, but I'd bet that at 5psi, the stock FI pump would be able to flow enough to keep the surge tank fed. It's nice and quiet, and you might already have one lying around, depending on what car you started with.

I use the 3bar sensor with the TECII, and have no problems. I don't know why the SDS would be any different in this respect. There are a couple of things that you need to keep in mind when using the 2bar sensor... First, while you can 'trick' the ECU into delivering enough fuel above 2bar Manifold Absolute Pressure as Scotty mentioned, what you are doing in this case is essentially letting it run really rich at the point where the sensor pegs. Then, as the boost increases beyond that point, your mixture will get progressively leaner. Hopefully, the boost will stop increasing before the mixture goes too lean. The main problem here is that there is no margin for error if you overboost - you can't command extra fuel at that point, since the ECU doesn't know it's happening. Second, a MAP sensor senses absolute pressure - it doesn't know what boost or vacuum means, everything looks like pressure to it. The range of a 2 bar sensor is 2 bar, which is not the same as 2 atmospheres (1bar = 14.5psi, 1atm = 14.7psi). Since boost pressure is always measured relative to the ambient atmospheric pressure, the amount of useable boost range of the 2 bar sensor is 2bar (29psi) minus whatever your local atmospheric pressure reads on the sensor. For instance, if your local atmospheric pressure is 1 atm (14.7psi), then an ideal 2 bar sensor will peg at 29-14.7 = 14.3psi of boost (i.e., _not_ the 15psi that everybody assumes). Now, if your sensor reads higher than 1 atm at ambient, you will have even less boost range available - my 3bar sensor generally reads 1.2bar (17.4psi)ambient here in Detroit. If it were a 2 bar sensor, this would only leave me with a useable boost range of 11.6psi. I guess what I'm trying to get across here is just because you have a 2bar sensor, don't assume that it will measure boost pressures to 15psi. It could easily peg closer to 14psi, or less.

Have you checked with Kinsler? http://www.kinsler.com They probably won't be the cheapest, but they do have an excellent selection of fuel system components, and they can tell you the specific characteristics of every pump that they sell. For a nominal fee, they will flow test your pump and send it to you with a spec sheet showing it's performance (current draw and fuel flow) at various outlet pressures. They have several pumps that will flow over 300lb/hr at 50psi, and will fit in the stock datsun FI fuel pump mount. I don't think that you'll find anybody that knows fuel delivery systems better than they do. Besides, especially if you're a V8 guy, it's worth a look just to drool over the beautiful manifold setups that they offer

Just got back some pics of my wastegate setup on the modified Cartech manifold, in case anyone's interested Thanks, Morgan [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited December 14, 2000).] [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited December 14, 2000).] [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited December 14, 2000).] [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited December 14, 2000).] [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited December 14, 2000).] [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited December 14, 2000).]