TimZ

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: So, ACT's web site says their 225mm clutch will only take 250 ft*lb of torque... I'll have lots more than that... How reasonable is their 250ft*lb figure? Will it do 400? Opinions? I just went through this with my Centerforce Dual Friction. After about 1k miles (that's a couple of year's worth for me, unfortunately), the DF started slipping in the higher gears. It had done fine up to that point, and had been dynoed at 400lb-ft at the wheels. I talked to a technician/sales guy at Centerforce, just to try to find out whether this was a freak occurrence, and if they could set me up with a useable clutch. When I told the guy the dyno numbers, he said that he had nothing (for the Z, anyway), and that he was surprised that it lasted as long as it did. He forwarded me to ACT, and they gave me pretty much the same story. They then forwarded me to Clutch Specialties. Anyway, I talked to the guy at Clutch Specialties for quite some time, and he seemed very knowledgeable, and was able set me up with a sprung center 225mm clutch with a slightly higher effort that would hold 450lb-ft. Also, it only cost ~$250 for the clutch, pressure plate, throwout bearing, and alignment tool. Also, he had everything he needed in stock, and sent it out exactly when he said he would, which seems to be a rarity lately (at least for me). I have not had a chance to get the new clutch installed, and since there's about a foot and a half of snow on the ground, I won't be able to evaluate it anytime soon. But, it might be worth your time to check with them and see what you think. http://www.clutchspecialties.com

Okay - I have a problem/question... I am currently using a Tilton aluminum flywheel. I have heard of people having problems with this type of flywheel where the flywheel bolts deform the aluminum, and subsequently make it difficult to keep the flywheel fastened securely. As a preventative measure, I have been using an auto trans flexplate adapter as a giant washer to prevent this from happening. It works great for this purpose, but the added thickness of the flexplate adapter leaves me with only about 0.5" of thread penetration into the crank. This makes me a bit nervous, since the bolts are 12mm, so I only have about 1.1 times the bolt diameter of penetration (the rule of thumb is 1.5 or greater). The stock bolts are 12mmx1.25 thread pitch, and are ~27mm in length. I checked with ARP, and they do not have anything longer, although they said that they could make me some if I paid the tooling costs, which would probably work out to something like $50-100/bolt (really). Does anybody have any ideas? Are there any other stock datsun (or other) flywheel bolts that are longer? I could mill the flexplate adapter, but that would probably only get me to about 1.3 or so...

quote: Originally posted by ZZ Bottom: I have THE KlUNK in my diff.I have replaced every mount and bushing and checked EVERYTHING..all is secure. Here's another thing to check... I have found that if the through-bolts that fasten the diff to the mount are installed upside-down (i.e., with the nut on the bottom), there is not enough clearance between the end of the bolt and the crossmember to prevent it from crashing into the crossmember on decel (when the nose of the diff drops). This is an easy mistake to make, since it's usually easier to install the bolt like that. It looks fine when you inspect it statically, but when you drive it, you still get the 'klunk'. Check to be sure that the bolts are oriented such that the nuts go on top of the diff, not below.

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: Anyone have/used/seen cartech's t4 manifold for l28 engines? If so, opinions? Yes. My exhaust manifold was originally done by Cartech, for their triple Mikuni blow through system. It is the same manifold that I was referring to in the previous post, last week. It is basically a stock cast turbo manifold with a T04 4-bolt flange grafted on, and a 1.5" external Wastegate flange located underneath the turbine outlet flange, as I had described before. Mine was purchased in the late '80s, so it may be somewhat different, now, but I'd wager that they are pretty much the same. The manifold has worked fine for me for quite some time, now. The quality of the work done was acceptable, but it could benefit from some internal porting at the turbine outlet flange, and at the spot where the tube for the wastegate tube (it's a tube with a flange on it, welded into a hole on the underside of the manifold) comes into the manifold. A half-hour with a die grinder fixed this, though. I recently modified mine to allow fitment of a considerably larger wastegate, as I couldn't find a wastegate with a 1.5" inlet that was suitable for more than ~300-350hp. The Deltagate will fit on it, but the RaceGate won't. So, if your goals are for <350hp, it will work fine pretty much as is. Otherwise, you may need a larger wastegate outlet (unless they've already changed that).

quote: Originally posted by clint78z: What really gets me is the IOT, TOG and Volumetric efficiency tables . That is 3 things just to set the amount of fuel injected correct . Well, sort of... I would have to agree that they could have done a much better job of naming their variables. IOT and TOG just don't mean much to the normal person. What they are doing here is setting an 'ideal' baseline fuel delivery function. IOT defines the amount of fuel injected at idle, and TOG defines the amount of fuel at full throttle. The amount of fuel at any throttle opening in between is a straight-line function between these two points. the engine will run surprisingly well with just these two values set properly, and it's pretty easy to use the datalogging function to do some part-throttle runs to see if you are going rich or lean as the manifold pressure increases. Also, their new software does have a 'wizard' to help you come up with reasonable initial settings. Since no engine is really 'ideal', though, the VE table is there to allow you to fine-tune the fuel delivery for any given RPM/MAP. Again, you can use the datalogging functions to see exactly where you are rich and where you are lean. quote: In the DFI and SDS you just ask do I want more or less fuel at that rpm and load point . The SDS has a lean rich knob for manual adjustment and then you simply correct it later. Part of my problem here is that I've never tried the SDS, but how do you know what RPM and load point was which? Granted, this is easy enough for part-throttle cruise and low boost where you can hold things steady with the brakes, but at high boost/rpm, things go by really quickly, not to mention the fact that you have to spend a lot of your mental processing load just keeping the car under control. With the TEC, I just start the datalogger, make my run, stop the datalogger, pull over the the side of the road and look at the data. quote: Another thing that bothered me is the A/F ratio listed some people say they are setting it for 14.3 at full boost, this doe not make sense to me . Hopefully you can clear this up for me TimZ, maybe it is easier to do once you get into it . Well, that doesn't make much sense to me, either. Generally, you want to target a richer mixture at full boost. The rule of thumb for this is ~12.5:1 to 13:1 at full boost, and 14.5-15 at cruise. Sometimes other values are used, due to inaccuracies of the EGO sensors (i.e., it reads 14.3 when it's actually 12.5)- maybe that's where the 14.3 number came from. Just to reiterate, you don't have to setup the AFR table to get the engine running. I generally don't use the EGO feedback until after I have the VE table dialed in. Anyway, Scottie is probably right about me making the tech-head mistake - my biggest complaint about the TEC is that is isn't capable enough ;P. And he is right in that if someone doesn't have a good understanding of how to read the graphed data, then maybe the datalogging won't do them much good. Just wanted to let you know that there is some support out there for the TEC, also, if you should decide to go that way. ------------------

quote: Originally posted by randy 77zt: i work as a tech at a ford dealer-the techs always wonder about the engineers and why they design vehicles to be so hard to work on-like the new f-series trucks with engines 1/2 under the dash board.and who writes the warrenty time standards? Time standards and the service manuals are done by the Parts and Service division, NOT engineering (just to defend myself a little). We didn't get to review the service manuals for the system I worked on until very late (at least we got to review them, I guess). When we complained that there was no reference drawing to tell the tech where connectors/parts for the system were located in the vehicle, we were told that the techs were 'specially trained', and didn't need such references, so these were deleted to keep the page count down. Hmmm... page count on a cdrom.... Anyway, we're not all idiots - and we do try, well at least dome of us do...

quote: Originally posted by Brian Spillar: Is there anyone out their who can tell me the output form (square wave, sin wave etc) of a late model Ford T5 vehicle speed sensor located on the output shaft of the transmission? and pulses per mile. Brian... If you can get the Ford part number, I can look up the engineering drawing for you - we have them online (I'm an engineer at Ford). The part number should look like: xxxx-xx-xxxxx ------------------

quote: Originally posted by clint78z: Old laptops can be had for $150 and can easily run old DOS version of TEC II software . (snip) Thank you for bringing that up, Clint. You don't have to use a $3000 laptop. Hopefully I won't incur the wrath of the SDS fans, but here goes... I have NEVER seen having to have a laptop as being a disadvantage. On the contrary, having the laptop brings with it the very significant advantage of being able to RECORD DATA while you are tuning. You don't have to guess about whether you were rich or lean at any given point on the fuel map - you can look at the data, and very quickly know where and by how much you need to adjust the fuel map. You just can't do this with the SDS. IMHO, you have to do an awful lot of guessing if you are trying to tune without datalogging. Also, it's very nice to have all of the relevant parameters displayed on-screen at once in a logical manner, instead of having to thumb through the hand controller one parameter at a time until you find the thing that you want. As far as the TEC being 'vastly' more complicated, I just don't buy it. Let's see.. The TEC has an 8 x 8 (i.e., 64 points)ignition timing map, based on RPM and MAP. The SDS has to set timing every 250rpm, and also has 64 ignition timing retard settings based on MAP. The TEC has an 8 x 8 fuel delivery table to allow tweaking the basic fuel curve based on rpm and map. The basic fuel curve is set by two parameters (idle and WOT, if you like). The car will run with just these two parameters set, and the fuel table all set to zero. The SDS has 64 fuel delivery tuning points based on MAP. It also appears to have rpm based fuel points every 250rpm. These are the basic things that you need to tune to get your engine to run, and in each case the SDS has as many or more parameters to tune than the TEC. Granted, there is an 8x8 table for tuning the general purpose output (SDS has a single RPM switchpoint), and an 8x8 for the desired air/fuel ratio for the EGO Feedback (SDS has a single AFR), but you don't have to set any of these to get the car to run, and you can very easily set them to be all the same so it looks like the SDS if that's what you want. The TEC does have more total tuning parameters available than the SDS, but I would argue that the number of parameters that HAVE TO be set to get a decently running engine are about the same, or less. The additional stuff, like being able to tweak your EGO feedback, or control an idle control valve, is just icing on the cake. That stuff won't keep you from getting your car running. Now, I realize that there are probably techniques that can be used to simplify the tuning process for the SDS, and that it's a bit cheaper, but there are techniques that can be used for the TEC, too. And I can't emphasize enough the advantage that comes from being able to datalog. I don't mean to offend anyone. I don't think that the TEC is the be-all end-all of EFI systems, and I do think that the SDS is a capable piece. I just get tired of hearing the TEC get bashed for being 'too complicated', especially since I don't believe that it is.

quote: Originally posted by clint78z: Welcome TimZ good to see you on the board, that is a nice way of mounting the wastegate, I wouldn't have thought it would fit that way . Clearances must have been fairly tight . Thanks for the kind welcome... Actually, there is a surprising amount of room under the manifold - the wastegate kind of ends up occupying the space that the stock n/a manifold's collectors would have used. You mainly have to watch out for the steering rod. Like I said - I was able to fit the monster HKS 60mm gate under there - and it fits very well. I'd guess it's about twice the size of the Racegate, and way bigger than the Deltagate. I also was able to route a 2.25" _separate_ exhaust for the wastegate, in addition to the 3" exhaust for the turbine outlet. As far as Morgan's question about the threaded fitting into the manifold - I guess I was tip-toeing around it a bit, but I just can't think of any existing threaded fitting in the manifold that would be anywhere near big enough to accomodate a wastegate. The Deltagate is marginal (BTDT) for anything over 300hp, and it requires 1.5". The RaceGate is bigger still. Do not skimp on wastegate size - you will not be happy with the results. As far as the feasibility of a threaded mild steel fitting - I would say that you'd be hard pressed to get the threads to seal reliably, and it just wouldn't be satisfactory. Once the hot gasses start leaking past the threads the whole joint will most likely rapidly deteriorate. Really - fitting a proper tube and flange and welding it in isn't that hard - I would think that if you were to fit everything up and tack weld it into place, you wouldn't have to pay more than $40 or $50 to have a professional finish the welding for you. I'll try to get a picture of my setup from underneath, if anybody is interested - I have the trans pulled right no for a clutch install, so you can see things a little better than usual. Oh - and Andy - Cherry Hill and Outer, or thereabouts. I work at Ford in Bldg 5. ------------------

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: (snip) Just bolt it straight on and plumb the tiny exhaust line. How tiny an exhaust line are you talking about here? I would not consider anything less than 1.5" for the wastegate outlet.

It's preferable to take the wastegate gasses from directly underneath the turbo flange, with the hole for the wastegate inlet centered on the turbine inlet flange. The wastegate would be mounted 'upside down' underneath the turbine housing. This way little or no flow reversal takes place when the wastegate opens. Also, this orientation allows the wastegate outlet to be blended into the exhaust further downstream from the turbine outlet, which is better for flow through both the wastegate and the turbine. Also, this is much easier for packaging and heat management, as the wastegate tubing can be packaged away from the intake manifold and brake master cylinder. I was able to mount an HKS 60mm (not a typo) wastegate in this manner, with no problems (aside from fabbing the wastegate outlet and welding it to the manifold, of course). Unfortunately, I don't have any pictures - sorry... ------------------

Pete... IMHO, you are right on the money. What I was trying to point out was that scca's post mentioned shortening the strut with the 14" rims (i.e., shorter rolling radius), and not shortening them with the 17" rims (larger radius), which I believe is backwards. BTW, I do not think you are a wimp for keeping the 240 isolators. I used the camber plates on all four corners for a while, and finally tore them out of the rear(and subsequently resized the struts again) and replaced them with the stock isolators. The camber plates were annoyingly loud/harsh, and didn't offer that much benefit, since by design, you can only use them to decrease camber. I modified the stock upper perch to locate the 2.5"id springs, and am much happier now. For a race only car, they would be fine, but IMHO the camber plates are unacceptable NVH-wise for a primarily street driven car (in the rear, anyway). ------------------

quote: Originally posted by scca: (snip) with 14" tires lowered 3" YES shorten the struts with 17" rims and lowered 3" with coilovers its not a necessity. Okay, I agree with the rest of the post, but can you explain the logic behind this? It seems to me that you'd me more likely to need to shorten the struts with a 17" rim and 3" drop. Most tires that you'd use with this rim would not be shorter than stock, which would necessitate the suspension to be lowered even farther to acheive the 3" drop. ------------------

quote: Originally posted by Drax240z: (snip)If not just cut a hole in the side of the NA pan and weld a piece of pipe onto it. One thing to add to that - the oil must return to the pan ABOVE the oil level, so put your tube as high as possible on the pan. ------------------

quote: Originally posted by simon-zbuild: Hi again guys, It is actually a "rising rate" fpr... so. . .if you have 10psi in your manifold, your fuel pressure reg then has the spring pressure. .plus. . the 10 psi. Simon... Careful with the terminology... "rising rate" and "pressure referenced" are not the same thing. What you have described is a pressure referenced FPR, not a rising rate. A rising rate FPR changes the fuel pressure non-linearly as the manifold pressure increases above atmospheric. For instance, a rising rate FPR should maintain a constant pressure differential across the injectors when you have manifold vacuum, just like the stock FPR. But, when the manifold pressure rises above atmospheric, the rising rate FPR will try to increase the fuel pressure by more than 1psi for each psi of manifold pressure - this is usually adjustable. so, at 10psi of boost, the RR FPR will have added maybe 20 or more psi to the fuel pressure. The purpose of this is to allow the stock ECU to still manage the idle and part throttle preformance, and simultaneously provide the appropriate amount of fuel through the otherwise undersized stock injectors when under boost. Also - you might notice that I said the FPR will "try to" increase pressure. In order to run higher fuel pressures than stock, you must be ABSOLUTELY sure that your fuel pump is capable of delivering the amount of fuel required, at the fuel pressures that you will be running while under boost. If your pump can't supply both the volume AND the pressure at the same time, there is nothing that the FPR can do about it. ------------------

I called Malvern about this about a year ago. Their response was that this was basically still an experimental piece, and that they were have trouble getting the roller rocker to last for more than one race. As far as I can tell, they are not really for sale.