TimZ

Ummm... So he was saying that his Accord didn't have ABS. It was illegal in F1 in 1997. Or was he saying that the Accord's ABS was modeled after the F1 drivers themselves? Also pure bullshit. ABS is a commodity. Honda buys it from the lowest bidding supplier, just like everybody else.

The reason I mentioned that was that John had mentioned the idea of leaving the rod end unpinned, and making the shaft such that it just screws into the tube itself, instead of just riding in it. The idea was that the adjustment could then be made by screwing the shaft in and out of the tube (which would now be threaded on the inside). For this to work, the rod end would need to be the opposite-handedness from the shaft's outer threads. Otherwise, when you screwed the shaft out of the tube, the rod end would screw into the tube, which would negate the adjustment. Hopefully that made sense...

Okay, I'll buy that, but the threads on the rod ends will have to be opposite that on the shaft/insert (right hand/left hand). If it were used for both camber and toe adjustment, it might not be as impossible as you think, and possibly not unstable. You could end up with a crapload of camber, but if the toe was reasonable, it would be driveable.

Oh. Duh.

Did you guys move the site to Bosnia, or something ?

John - am I missing something, or wouldn't this require removal of the infamous spindle pin to allow adjustment? Two things I like about BeastZ's design are the ability to adjust it without disassembly, and the fact that it's impossible for an inexperienced customer to adjust the rod end out so far that there is insufficient thread left to retain it safely. NASCAR and TransAm pit crews know exactly how far they can safely go. I'd be willing to bet that this would not even occur to 80% of the backyard wrenches out there. Until their wheel was dragging by the brake lines, that is...

Given the side loads and vibrations that you are going to see in that location, it's probably not a question of whether it will be a problem, but more one of how soon. I think this should be a fairly easy problem to address. I would think that given the dimensions of the main shaft, you almost certainly are having the threads cut on this anyway, right? I can't imagine this being an off the shelf piece. If this is the case, all you need to do is determine a reasonable range of adjustment, and only cut the threads in the shaft on the ends instead of the whole shaft, leaving an unthreaded portion in the middle that slides in the tube. I do like the design, BTW - it looks very nice, and I may very well be interested in a set. It would probably have to be next winter's project, though - I've already spent WAY too much money this winter ...

You mentioned before that there were several unused vacuum ports. Do you have a vacuum line running to the FPR? Are all of the unused ports plugged?

Is that available for purchase, or did somebody just make it for themselves?

I think that the confusion (at least for me) comes from the fact that you said that the rod ends were secured in the main shaft with roll pins. If this is corect, then it looks like you would have to rotate the whole assembly (including the rod ends) to make length adjustments. Now after reading your description for the fourth time and looking at the picture, I think I see what is going on - the mainshaft is threaded on both ends of the tube that it slides in, but the tube is not threaded. The jam nuts on both ends are what do the adjusting. Is this correct? My only concern with this would be whether you have made any provisions to keep the threaded shaft from abrading the inside of the tube, and eventually enlarging the id of the tube to the point that the shaft can wobble enough that the jam nuts will no longer remain tight. This is the same issue that makes it desireable to use a bolt with a long unthreaded portion as opposed to one with threads all the way. The unthreaded portion keeps the bolt centered in the hole (assuming the hole is the proper size for the bolt), and keeps the threads from chewing up the bore.

In the military, I believe they refer to that as "Mission Creep". I am the king of "Mission Creep".

Yes, many things could be contributing. However, his torque starts falling off at 4100rpm, which seems a bit low even for the stock cam. My main point was that the 2.5" exhaust probably wasn't the biggest factor.

I also notice that he's been inside to buy a cup of coffee...

I'm with James... the abrupt torque falloff is consistent with an undersized turbo falling off it's efficiency map. The 3" exhaust will help a little, but you'll most likely still see this same characteristic until you go to a larger more efficient turbo. LOL. Of course the Catch-22 with this logic is that no matter what goal you set, once you get there it won't be enough. The upside is that upgrading in smaller steps lets you get used to the increased power more gradually, and gives you a better chance of surviving...

Now hold on, there - you would still use the normal type of activation switch system for the nitrous. The relay coil would be controlled by this same switch. When the nitrous was off, the relay would ground the analog input. When the nitrous was on, the relay would route the filtered GPO output to the analog input. The idea is that if you low pass filter the PWM'ed GPO signal, you will end up with a DC voltage proportional to the duty cycle of the GPO output. For instance if your filter consisted of a resistor to +5V and a properly sized capacitor to ground, then 100% duty cycle would result 5Vdc at the filter output. 50% duty cycle would result in 2.5V. If you route this signal to the analog input, you could use it to dynamically modify the fuel mixture, using the fuel enrichment setting for that input. NO. Even with a wideband O2 sensor, the feedback loop is too slow to rely on for something like this. Yes. Although I am currently switching over to a TWM induction setup, which nobody seems to be able to get to run that lean. With my ported stock intake manifold and 72lb injectors (running at 36psi, so more like 64lb), I was able to get stoich at idle. One very good trick is to use less ignition timing at idle (lowers the idle speed), and open the idle air bypass to let more air in (leans the mixure).

Okay, this would be kind of hokey, but if you did want a 16x16 map for your nitrous (I refuse to say NOS ) enrichment, you could probably put a low pass filter on one of your GPO outputs, gate it with your nitrous activation signal, and run that into your analog input. You could use a simple DPST relay for the gating function - just remember to ground the other relay contact so that you get a solid ground to the analog input when the nitrous is off. You could do a pretty good job with a setup like this, although since you are going through a few stages in the analog domain, your precision won't be quite as good as it would be if you had a 16x16 map to access directly for this.

What is your plan for controlling the fuel mixture while the nitrous is on from the TECIII? I'm not seeing much that would give you terribly precise control in their software. You could probably use the (inadequately documented) fuel enrichment function from one of the A/D inputs, but unless you have some sort of analog voltage that is proportional to the amount of Nitrous being injected, this will be pretty much the same as running a wet system, as far as precision goes. It's not like you are going to have a 16x16 trim map at your disposal - you will just have the one enrichment value that adds pulsewidth in proportion to the analog voltage at the input. I guess that it wouldn't be much worse than a wet system, and far better than the enrichment methods traditionally used with dry systems, though. You will still have potential problems with uneven cylinder to cylinder distribution of the nitrous, just as you would with a traditional dry system, and there is nothing that you can do about that, aside from running a seperate dry nossle at each cylinder.

Well, I guess if you overtightened them so badly that you cracked the block, I guess they could cause a leak... Here is a link to a conversation we had quite some time ago about the torque specs: ARP head stud torque thread I had actually scanned the spec sheet, and James posted it on his website, but it appears that he has since moved/deleted it, so the link was broken. James - maybe you could post an updated link to that pic? I still have it here if you need me to send it...

Twin Mill. I used to have that one when I was a kid. Mine was green, though...

Bummer. Oh well - it's still appropriate.

Well, at least you have that... I'm really sorry and concerned to hear this - best of luck to you. Along these lines, here is an interesting quote that I saw recently: "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar

Yes, it could be done, but I would think that it would be a lot of time, expense and complexity for not much gain. You would have to use a roots-style blower for the supercharger, as the low rpm response of the centrifugal-style superchargers is not that different from that of a turbo.

I'm pretty sure that the Z front needs the rear strut from the MR2, not the front.

Vega Station Wagon.

This comes up about once a year or so. The weight is called a mass damper - it's basically a band-aid fix for a noise/vibration problem that was discovered after cars started rolling off the assembly line. At this point, it's too late to make major changes. Some of the crossmembers were apparently resonating at some speed, and making objectionable noises. Adding weight to it forces it to resonate at a different frequency (presumably one that was not a problem for the diff), and the problem goes away. Common practice in the auto industry, even today. This is usually only done for noise/harshness issues, so if you don't notice funny noises, I wouldn't worry too much about replacing it. Mine fell off some time back in the eighties, and I've never been able to tell the difference.