TimZ

quote: Originally posted by v-8 Zfreak: i just thought why settle for 12 psi when it would require just as much work to get a higher amount. the only differance is turbo size. Think again... Even the price difference between 12psi and 20psi on a 360 could be pretty huge. You have to remember that even at 12psi, you are going to be in the 600-700hp range, and probably about as much torque. Go take a look around and tell me how many transmissions you can find that are rated for anywhere near that. Then look at what they cost, and how big they are. Same for rearends. Then look at the fabrication that you wll need to do to adapt a rear suspension around that ginormous rearend. Now up that hp/torque estimate to, say 1100hp and about the same torque, and look at what's available. Notice that I haven't even touched on the mods that you would need to do to the engine, which are most likely substantial. This is WAY more than just adding a turbo. Sorry to sound so negative - it would be a fun project. You just really need to have a clear picture of what you are getting yourself into. I Think that this is just sounding to alot of us like one of those projects that you spend a ton of cash on, get halfway through, and then give up on when you realize how much more you are going to have to do to make it work. I'll go back to my original statment - get a clear picture of what you really want to end up with, then go for that, and leave yourself some headroom (just not 200% headroom ). You should also try to get a clearer picture of what kind of performance level we are talking about with even a 300hp Zcar. Then maybe go look at the infamous Darius videos - looks cool, but let me tell you - it would get pretty annoying NEVER having traction, even at 70mph. Think about it - sure you could do alot of burn outs and showing off, but if you wanted to drive seriously fast, you'd be screwed. It would be far too difficult to keep that rearend planted through the twisties. And I'll bet that you'd be making more power than Darius at 12psi of boost.

quote: Originally posted by Kevin Shasteen: Twin Turbo Set Up (Divide 30psi/2 = 15psi) . 833cfm w/Twin Turbo's @ 65% Efficiency Rating . 2.09 Pressure Rating . 1.54 Density Ratio . 299*F Intake Inlet Temp's w/out an Intercooler . 159*F Intake Inlet Temp w/a Intercooler w70% Efficiency Rating . 139*F temp drop w/the use of the intercooler I'm pretty sure that when you run the numbers for a twin setup, you divide the flow between the two turbos, not the pressure. For a given engine and turbo efficiency, 30psi will flow the same amount regardless of the number of turbos. So, the pressure ratio for a given amount of boost is independent of the number of turbos - the difference is that you pick different flow/pressure ratio points on the plot.

Hmmm... 30psi on a 360? Yikes! You DO understand that this should result in a 1000++ hp engine, right? Any plans on how to keep from twisting your poor Z up like a pretzel? Anyway, unless they have added a substantially bigger VATN to the lineup, this turbo won't be anywhere near big enough for you, even in a twin turbo setup. As I recall, even if they were used as a twin setup, they would only slightly more than a decent 360 sould flow N/A. You might get 2 or 3 psi out of them, and your horsepower might actually drop, due to the high exhaust restriction that they would most likely cause. As far as picking something out for you, I've not been sizing anything up for a V8 recently, so I don't have an easy answer for you. I would suggest, however, that you don't get too hung up on how much boost you want to run. This is the wrong metric to chase - there are too many varibles associated with boost pressure to get anything close to a predictable result this way. Instead, I'd recommend deciding on how much power you want and what kind of spoolup you can live with, and then size up a setup based on that (give yourself some headroom - you always end up wanting more ). It would be good to to some reading on the subject, but if you don't feel confident picking something out, most of the turbo manufacturers have technical staff that will be more than happy to assist you. The better understanding that you have as to what you want, the more they will be able to help you.

quote: Originally posted by John Lindsay: why not turbo a tune port 350 and put that in insted of a L6 the cost would be about the same but the power would be awsome I don't disagree that there is a huge power potential with a turboed 350, but could you please explain to me how this would cost about the same as swapping in a turboed L6 from a ZXT?

I'm not, but as I recall, that was where my Z was originally purchased.

That is a characteristic of variable reluctance mag pickups - the slower the rpm, the weaker the signal gets. What is your gap currently? It would probably help to get the gap as small as possible.

quote: Originally posted by randy 77zt: i would not but abs into a z unless it cycled faster than the units that are found on american cars. Huh? I guess I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here, but in general, the American made cars use pretty much the same ABS systems that the Europeans do. There are only a handful of suppliers for this technology, and I know for a fact that most of them use the same hardware with different vehicle-specific tuning on whatever car the system is going in, regardless of whether it's a Ford or a BMW.

You are experiencing what is known as a "ground loop". Basically, the ground voltage varies depending on where you pick it up. You are apparently picking up your ground from a place on the chassis/harness that is in the current path of your amplifier and mirrors. When the amp or mirrors draw current, they change the voltage at your ground. Since the ground voltage at the sensor is not changing (at least not in the same way), your reading flickers. Ground your meter to the engine block as close to the sensor as you can, and this problem should go away.

quote: Originally posted by Ross C: "JCR makes a supercharger for Z's" I heard via a customer of mine that they weren't selling that system anymore? Have you got info that says different? As i recall, they still show the Cartech turbo setup in there, also. I'm pretty sure that that kit has not been available for 10+ years.

I got it from this site: http://www.3si.org/member-home/jlucius/index.html I just tripped over it after doing a Dogpile search on "td05 compressor map"

Well... Here is a compressor map for a td05: Bear in mind that the RPM lines drawn on this map were derived for a twin turbo 3.0l setup. So, to get the appropriate flow for your single turbo 2.8l, you'll have to go to roughly double the RPM shown on the chart (i.e., 4000rpm for you is 8000rpm on the chart) From this, it looks like if you want to run, say, 10psi at 4000rpm, you will need to run your compressor wheel at about 105,000rpm (the green dot on the red line). Let's say your crank pulley is 6inches in diameter. At 4000rpm, you would need to multiply your shaft speed by 105/4, or 26.25. This would result in a required compressor pulley of about 6/25.25, or about 0.28" in diameter. If you want higher boost it only gets worse. Sorry.

You've left out one crucial detail - the compressor wheel needs to turn at 50,000+ RPM. I don't think you can get a drive pulley small enough for that. The centrifugal superchargers have a gearing system that increases the rpm of the compressor so that it can work properly.

Okay - just a quick question - what MAP sensor do you have that actually shows vacuum readings? Is this some sort of gauge or are you using this with a FI system of some sort? Usually MAP (Manifold Absolute Pressure) sensors don't show vacuum, since that's a relative reading, not an absolute reading. Vacuum is pressure referenced to atmospheric pressure. So, if you have some sort of MAP sensor setup that reads vacuum, it would need to be calibrated to the current atmospheric pressure in order to work properly. Does it read zero vacuum when the engine isn't running?

Norm - maybe you already know this, but whenever I put in a new head gasket, I run the engine through a few heat cycles and retorque the head (after cooling overnight, of course). I usually do this two or three times, just because I'm paranoid. This should help alleviate any problems that might crop up from the gasket 'settling' and losing some of the original clamping force.

I did a quick search, and found these threads that might be helpful to you... http://www.hybridz.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000088&p= http://www.hybridz.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000174 http://www.hybridz.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000125

quote: Originally posted by scca: Tim, i guess i dont follow..... you still say the rears will lock first.. so where did i miss about the brake bias thing? Actually, I was agreeing with what you had said, and applying the same idea a bit further to address the brake bias question. Remember that the front and rear brakes are on seperate circuits hydraulically. So, while you've made the fronts 'mushier', the 'stock' rears act like they always did. It's important to remember that there are several variables to take into account when changing calipers. Increased caliper size/pad area on the same size rotor will not necessarily increase the max braking force in the front. It should, however, give you lower peak temps, due to the friction forces being spread across a gretater area. All of the big brake mods are there primarily to increase your braking systems ability to manage brake temps, which allow you to brake consistently, repeatably, and from higher speeds. They are not generally for increasing the max braking force - in most cases, the stock brakes would lock all four wheels, and any increased force is wasted beyond that. The problem was they would only allow a small amount of repeated use before fading, especially from high speeds.

quote: Originally posted by scca: its not the qty of pistons but the piston area. the size of the pistons affects the reaction time pedal pressure and pedal feel is controlled by the size of the master cylinder in relation to the calipers. Mike is right about this, but I believe that the assumptions about the resulting brake bias are backwards, and I hadn't seen anybody mention this. The reason that larger pistons make the brakes fell mushy is that the amount of fluid volume that it takes to create a given amount of braking force increases with increasing piston size. Since the master cylinder volume has not changed, the amount of pedal travel required to achieve a given amount of braking force increases. Now - if you increase the volume consumption in the front with bigger calipers, but leave smaller stock calipers in the rear, the braking balance shifts to the rear (rears lock first), since the brake force/pedal travel relationship didn't change in the rear. Make sense?

Okay - I finally got around to scanning in a picture of myself... BTW - My beard is only ~1/4" long - it's just a shadow (240Zturbo thought I looked like Osama )

I read your post. You're right - that guy was a dork . Classy response, though - it's difficult to stay above the fray sometimes - nice job (and you still made him look stupid. ) On the TECIII, I've been hearing much the same. Here's a response that I have a little more faith in than the marketing guys at SEMA: http://www.vishnuperformance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000664

...more like version 0.1 On the Ford thing, the Motorsports catalog has had the Xtreme Performance EEC IV piggyback system for at least a couple of years, now, although it's almost like they've been trying not to sell it (when was the last time you heard anything about it?). Actually, it appears to have a wealth of features, including eight analog inputs, just for datalogging. They are marketing it as though it will only work with a 5.0 with an EEC IV, although I'm pretty sure it could be adapted to any EEC IV based engine (V8s for sure, maybe others).

Just downloaded the software - holy crap there's alot of stuff to program! I'm not complaining about adjustability, but some of the stuff that they have in there I'm not sure how you would really tune it. For instance - a 17x21 (17x21 ) table for tuning injector advance? How the hell would you tune that? The only thing that would make any sense there would be to get a very good engine simulation program, and try to set it up by using simulation data. I'm not sure you could really even tune this very well on a dyno - I doubt that you'd be able to see a measurable difference. It might have some advantage at low power/RPM, where the injector pulsewidth is shorter than the valve open time, but once the injector pulsewidth becomes significantly larger than the valve open time, I can't see where this would make any difference at all. Also, there are many, many single dimension tables for all kinds of corrections for fuel, timing, etc., where a couple of dimensions for a linear function would probably work as well or better. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of data analysis capabilities, but they didn't include a sample data file, so I couldn't evaluate this. I just didn't see any menu options for anything interesting in that respect. It does look like it has possibilities, though - you'd just have to do alot of weeding to get to the useful stuff.

I've been using a Gleason-Torsen since about 1988, and I really like it. Mine was one from the last aftermarket production run that Gleason did - I got it from Bob Sharp Racing. Is there anything specific that you wanted to know?

...Nobody has mentioned timing yet - this usually has the most direct effect on detonation. What timing are you running when this is happening?

quote: Originally posted by 240Z Turbo: Not true, the L can rev to 9K if properly built, Everything that I have read points to a harmonic crankshaft resonance problem at around 8k, which can result in crankshaft breakage. This usually happens only when the engine spends large amounts of time at that rpm (like endurance racing), but the problem is there. As such, I'd keep the redline below 7500, personally. Really, with a turbo, it's easier and more driveable to make your power at lower rpm, anyway.

Hey - I still work there... I have to say that there were many smiling faces at work today. Actually, there are quite a few car guys there - the guy that did the majority of the suspension tuning on the Lightning is a friend of mine, and he has two Z's. At least I have the comfort of knowing that several of Nasser's lieutenants are getting the boot, too, and their replacements will have to try pretty hard to be worse...