Jump to content


Donating Members
  • Content Count

  • Donations

    20.00 USD 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Everything posted by Gollum

  1. What's your plan to smog it? Still has the SR right? With any luck we'll have good news in a week and it will be a non-issue.
  2. Progress continues on. Oil AND fuel pressure are wired in now, so I'm officially down to once ADC left on MS3X. Been working on a racepak inspired dash. Otherwise been putting miles on the car as much as I can.
  3. You going to be running factory EFI? In and case it sounds like you've got realistic goals and such. Keep looking around here and you'll likely find answers to most your questions. Also never hesitate to reach out to our more active members.
  4. Yeah I understand. For what it's worth I think a stock turbo motor is at about 94VE peak starting to trail off at 5300 or so and dropping down as low as 65-70 by redline. Improving top end flow with a better cam, valve unshrowding, and bowl clean up will help immensely. And thus hitting your projected 225whp at 10psi would be much easier. Though I don't think that's beyond reason with what you've mentioned.
  5. Boost can creep in low and high boost situations depending on the airflow profile of the engine and size of wastegate. Using matchbot (Google it) I think you're going to last at about 50% wastegate actuation from 4-7krpm. This is assuming the wastegate port is about 1" or 25mm and using the turbine flow map found here: http://turbochargerspecs.blogspot.com/2013/02/garrett-gt28rs-gt2860rs-62-trim-360-hp.html?m=1 Learn to use matchbot. It's extremely useful.
  6. At those power and boost levels creep shouldn't be an issue. The .64 AR is likely fine until you're pushing near the 300whp level.
  7. Who says I'm limited by pump gas I'll be running E85 by next winter. I'll actually be doing initial tuning in the next couple months. I have no doubt I'll be able to run flat tops on E85. Now, what kind of boost I can manage on CA 91 octane remains to be seen.
  8. Ha! Not only am I making it work, but it's working WELL. I'm actually kinda eager to find a flat top F54 bottom end.... Which was my plan all along. 9.5:1 is probably about right. And no, didn't even touch the short side radius. I plan on doing a more thorough street port on it down the road, and have someone cut the seats for larger valves. That'll probably happen if/when I drop it onto a block with flat tops. Or if I can't find that, I'll by some aftermarket flat tops with the same pin height as factory. I think the main reason this combo "doesn't work" for so many people's experience is that the ideal timing gets SO LOW at peak torque. I've had pinging at 4-5k at only 18 degrees advance... yet still making about 200 ft/lbs to the wheels at 7psi boost. So though that's a lot less timing than the factory curve, people running non-programmable ignition end up having to pull so much timing out of the base timing at the distributor that yes, there's no power in the engine. But so far, I'm definitely at least matching the torque/power I'd get from a P90...
  9. Since it was bothering me trying to track rows and clumns on a picture, and I knew I had the original xls shared somewhere on my fileserver, I dug it up and put it up on google sheets. If you have a google/gmail account you can make a copy for yourself and modify/mark/note to your heart's content. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTiMRW_q9winvoPB7G4bQ42Br6aX8fVZRrag9IElIJi52ArTcQxYnWwxfn94x2VHYLA9Z7EawEqelMo/pubhtml
  10. Here's a useful after/before tune diff: And a scatter plot which gives you a good idea of the weight of the cell data (I've removed off-throttle and transient data) Another interesting way to look at data, Pulse Width by Duty Cycle, colored by AFR. Same off-throttle and transient data remove as above. The logs: 2019-03-10_13.44.08.msl.zip Tune Resulting tune: Gollum-Tune.zip
  11. Drove about 30 miles today. About 8 miles of freeway and lots of various back roads, all the while auto tuning. While I was about 7-8 miles from home still I heard a new and obvious noise during a higher RPM pull. My immediate concern was oil pressure loss and cam damage. I drove easier on it the rest of the way back and the closer I got to home the more I suspected the fan clutch. Get home, pull hood... Clutch fan is noticably difficult to spin. Eh, oh well. The resulting map has some obvious holes, and there's some holes actually MADE by auto tune, so I'm a bit curious about that. We'll see what more long term results say. That said, the under boost region is WAY better and stays very close to target AFR now. I'll likely end up smoothing based off of this and then seeing if the holes reappear. I'll post logs and the new tune file in a bit.
  12. Shouldn't be a problem at all. MOST people making 200whp on factory longblocks without issue. But you'll likely end up wanting to ditch the factory EFI. You've modified the top end enough that the factory curve won't work well at all, and most people don't have the patience/interest in learning how to hack the factory EFI and retune it. Once you've got a good tune, whatever your choice there, you should be able to make 200whp on about 8-10psi without issue considering the top end improvements. As far as "limits", your limit will be detonation for a given boost/fuel/tune combo. A factory bottom end will hold 400hp all day as long as there's no overheating and/or detonation issues. So as long as the tune's good, the bottom end is pretty reliable. You might choose to just always fill with 110 octane and run a large radiator. You might choose to do some common cooling mods to improve rear cylinder temps. You might opt for a fancy ECU with per-cylinder trimming so you can keep detonation prone cylinders a bit softer. Everyone always asks the famous "how do I make 300hp with a L28ET?", and the answer always boils down to "add boost, tune well". These things won't explode in a fit of rage because of a power/torque level though. It's generally large amounts of abuse on a bad tune, using pump gas and lots of boost, or revving the nuts off of it when you didn't build it for that, which generally do them in. Handle the tuning aspect, and you can make as much power as you venture into solving secondary issues for (which generally all boil down to heat management).
  13. I'm one of those odd people that will likely never sell their S30, but I also didn't buy it because it was a dream car. I got into Z cars because they were cheap(er) and were as close to a blank canvas as you can get. Any engine fits, and they're small enough that they generally handle well unless you ruin them. But if you held a gun to my head, I guess my ideal S30 would be some Frankenstein between a BRE 240Z and a Daytona Coupe. Ideally a modern spaceframe like the new FFR models, with tires for days. As fond as I am of the L motor, the Coyote has been my dream of a perfect V8 for 8+ years now, and it's only getting better with each passing iteration. In reality, I'm actually far more likely to build a FFR Daytona than build that S30, mostly because of required time and tool investment. I'm not a chassis designer, and as much fun as that sounds, would likely get to the desired results faster by letting others do the heavy engineering lifting. Though I guess an idea I've had in the back of my mind for 15+ years now, would be to just plop a S30 body onto a FFR chassis... Which seems like a shame, because it's not like the Daytona is ugly. Maybe I'll order TWO kits....
  14. Yeah, I bought my first S130 under the same hope/expectation. That all went up in flames, sadly. I really wish they'd go back to a rolling smog year, but this is at least something. Back to your regularity scheduled sign-in thread.
  15. Welcome! Keep and eye on this state bill, your car might be smog testing exempt soon. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB210
  16. Hmm, looking at the thread again, I think 8.5 @ +4 might be tough to fit up front on a S130. That 4.9" of backspace is going to get you extremely close to the strut tube up front. In the back, that much backspace would be fine, especially with more compact coil overs. So if you're wanting 8.5" instead of 9" or 9.5" you might be better off with the -10, even though that's going to also need rolling if you're pushing a 245 wide tire onto it.
  17. FricFrac went with 9.5 all around, but felt 255 was too tight up front, and went with 235 instead for the front, but still on 9.5 up front. The one person who mentions issues in the thread is slownrusty (yasin) who says they're tough to fit on a really low car. On a mild lowering you're likely find, but if you're dropping it a lot then fitment gets really tight. All this is to say that a 8.5" should fit in either a +4 or -10, but I'd err towards the +4 since inward fitment on the S130 wasn't really the tight spot. But let me dig through when Christ and I tested them on my S130 and verify the suspension clearance.
  18. 9.5 in back, and 9.0 in front, with 255/40 in back and 245/40 in front. Rolling performed.
  19. 17 x 9 -13 with 255/40/17 tires. Mild rolling performed.
  20. Huh? Lots of people ran the group buy wheels on the S130. It's not ideal, as the S130 can stand a bit more backspacing than the S30 stock for stock, but it works fine. You can't maximize the tire though, and need to stay 245 to be safe, but I've seen a few guys pushing 255 on the group buy wheels on the S130. Also, I know rims are always sold in offset figures, but start posting and thinking in backspace measurements. That said, a 17x8.5 +4 is 4.9" of backspace, which should fit quite nicely. You might have some rubbing under full lock, but I'd have to bust out measurement tools be to sure. If you step up to a -10 on a 8.5" wheel that's going to push backspacing down to 4.4" of backspacing, which is LESS than the group buy wheels, which means while it should clear suspension with ease, you're going to be that much more limited on tire size before needing to roll the fender. All this said, the S130 can fit HUGE tires without cutting/rolling if the fitment is right. 275 in the rear isn't unreasonable if done right.
  21. Since it seems the FAQ section can't be posted to, the Map sharing thread is effectively dead to new data. So I guess I'll just keep a running thread log of my tune and config as it changes. I started my tune by taking the "example config" tables, and then adjusting to "ballpark" from what I was seeing in other people's threads. Not many people were running a setup like mine, so it was difficult to get close, so I tried to err on the side of safety for most of my maps and I've slowly been edging them closer. My ignition map was far too aggressive to start with, and in some areas still is, but I've been pretty happy with the performance thus far on this combo, despite everyone's warnings of compression, detonation, and not being "good for boost". My setup: F54 turbo bottom (dish pistons) MN47 Head (factory through and through for now) Factory T3 (likely the first thing getting replaced) running on factory wastegate (6-7 psi depending on how it feels today) NON-Intercooled (one of my defining self-limitations, I'm keeping it this way) Non-EGR N42 Intake manifold DIY Autotune Dizzy Trigger Wheel Bosch Blue 260cc o-ring injectors (Ford T-Bird and others) running sequentially Pallnet Fuel Rail Factory fuel pump Factory fuel regulator Factory fuel filter Factory fuel damper still in place Tuning on CA Pump 91 Flex fuel sensor installed, showing my pump gas indeed is between 9-11% ethanol D585 LS Coils running COP Now, Configs: (I'm only posting windows of which I've altered settings) Basic/Load Settings Fuel Settings Ignition Settings Startup/Idle (I don't think I've changed much here other than WUE) Accel Enrich (lot of work to do here still) Advanced Engine I've also attached my tune file: CurrentTune.msq And the last tuning run logs: 2019-03-02_10.38.01.msl.zip NOTE: The above tune file and tables have been updated since that last log, so if viewing in MegaLogViewer the table data won't align properly. I'll likely be updating this regularly over the next few months as I'm making changes often. In no way do I recommend just copy/pasting any of these settings/values without understanding the risks. I make no guarantees for the validity of this data or lack of harm to your engine.
  22. I feel like we've got three or so of these threads rolling around, but this one at least has semi-recent postings. I only trust the scale +/- 20lbs, but my last weigh in was 2280. 1975 280Z Gutted doors (no glass, factory bracing still) No interior other than OEM seats No dash No spare No bumpers MSA Type 1 fiberglass air dam L28ET (no oil cooler) S130 5 speed, I think an '81 R200 diff 3" exhaust, no cat, straight through muffler No AC No HVAC/Blower/anything Hey, I still have wipers! I have another 100lbs easy to remove too, I think. Going to replace the rear glass with plastic eventually, and my whole front end is still steel. Will replace hood eventually, and since I deleted the HVAC I need to get a smooth cowl panel, and might save a few ounces there. I'm also running a common group 53 lead acid battery, so there's 15-20lbs of weight savings there if I wanted to spend the money.
  23. I weighed my car this morning and updated my post to reflect that, and also clarified the data source.
  24. All the data was there in my first post, though looking at it again I see I could have been more clear. The graph itself states "virtual dyno" right on the top, and I published ALL my data points to show with others what I used. The speedo data isn't used at all by the HP calculation. It's RPM over time. If you know the rate of change, and you know the load, that's all you need. In theory, you could do the same over MPH, but that's now how Virtual Dyno works, that's how GPS based phone app dynos work, and hence their phone-gps-accuracy-dependency that I feel I've just about killed the topic on here. And by the way, I have no speedo in use. Purely using GPS speedo in my car for MPH reference for myself. IMO, the data I posted could have just as easily come from a mechanical dyno, and people would want just as much of an explanation of numbers. In fact, we've done that here more than once... 🙄 I'd expect other veterans here to know from my history that I strive for meaningful, accurate data. And I shared what I have, and what I knew, and have been honest and open about caveats. I've in no way intended to mislead, and feel I've shown that in every post thus far. And at the end of the day let's be honest.... 186whp@5184 is actually damn close to MOST stock L28ET dynos we see.... If I'd had to guess a number ahead of time, I'd have thought it'd be 170-175, about where most L28ET's come in... I mean shoot, drax made 211whp on stock wastegate pressure... Edit: Re weight: I agree, meaningful weight data is important to virtual dyno. But a 200lb reduction that would put me WAY under where I think I am would net me a whopping 10hp loss in the calc. I stated in my first post I plan to weigh my car soon, and would update the data once I had more concrete numbers. For now, I assumed 2400 lbs (car last weighed in at 2540lbs and I've removed a lot since) and my own weight at 230 (which might be more like 235-240 once I take into account all my clothing, jacket, hat, pocket knife, phone, steel toe boots, etc). But Even if we look at how much potentially difference there COULD be... it's less of a HP swing than running dynos back to back on a heat soaked engine.
  25. Ahh, to correct myself, the three log pieces virtual Dyno needs is TPS, TIME (not map) and RPM. Everything else is just bonus (like MAP and AFR if you have it). A dynometer only requires the same info. Only the TPS is normally an operator triggering the start of the run manually. The dynometer records its own RPM and time, and only needs vehicle RPM input for axis translation.
  • Create New...