--
From: owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
(Team3S Digest)
To: stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Team3S Digest V1 #100
Reply-To: stealth-3000gt
Sender: owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
Errors-To:
owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
Precedence:
bulk
Team3S Digest Saturday,
February 13 1999 Volume 01 : Number
100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:01:38 -0500
From: "Trent" <rtrent@nlci.com>
Subject: Team3S: AFC
Defence
Contrary to popular opinion, the Apex AFC dosn't control fuel by
RPM. It
dosn't even control fuel. Fuel is still controlled by the
factory MAS/ECU
(even under varying loads and conditions). Thats why it
works so well. The
fact that it has seperate rpm adjustments means you
have more flexability
(than you probably need). The AFC would likely
work sufficiently with one
knob. My setup has most of the knobs in
identical positions across the rpm
band. To say it's only sufficient to
get your car "running" is incorrect.
It works near perfectly for me.
Why people go to the trouble and expense to
gut the factory MAS (one of the
best MAS designs BTW) confuses me. IMHP
save your money and trouble,
let HKS (the Microsoft of aftermarket) go the
way of the dinasour, and if you
must have that extra 10 HP, install
nitrous.
Regards,
DaveT/92TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info,
our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:58:31 +0000
From: "R.G." <robby@swissonline.ch>
Subject:
Team3S: ATTENTION Blitz DSBC Owners !!
Dear DSBC users,
I just
came back from Germany and drove about 2 hours on high speeds on
the
Autobahn. During this time I again made some excessive tests with the
Blitz
settings as I was not happy with the overboost. On our Dyno day Mike
told me
that he's seeing spikes up to 1.3 bars (gulp) and I told him that
there must be
something wrong with the installation. During the dyno I run
G20/R52 to achieve
1.00bars over the bandwidth. I had some very small spike
up to 1.02bars but
nothing to worry. On the street, these setting are too
extreme and you'll find
yourself around 1.2 bars easily. My latest settings
therefore where G30/R47 and
the car runned great.
The last days I felt
that boost increased very quick and I saw the meter jumping
up and getting
back to a sustained level. Unfortunately, this level was only
around 0.86 -
0.89 bars then but the peak was up to 1.15 bars, even with the
limiter set
!!
The GAIN :
We now know that the higher the Gain setting is the
faster the turbos build up
boost. This is simply done by starting to open the
wastegates later, i.e.
starting to alternate the Blitz solenoids. The Ratio
then controls the length
the solenoids stay open (frequency). Looking at the
table in the DSBC manual
didn't helped yet. But the longer it takes the more
understandable it becomes :)
Please take it for a short look at it
:
The first line with GAIN describes the Gain setting for these cars
(180SX,
Skyline, GT-R, Chaser, Supra TT, RX-7, Lancer EVO) while the next
lines describe
the Ratio to achieve the pressure in the first column. Please
note, that there
is a major typo as the 0.10kg should read 1.0 kg and so on
:) The problem was
now that we had good results with G30 even without a lot
overboost when
launching ! But due to the table the car should overboost a
lot ... and it does.
I was able to hold the car's boost with the throttle
around 0.5bars in 3rd, 4th
and 5th gear. Then boost was already there and the
turbos where at their speed.
Now I floored the pedal and boost made a huge
jump up to 1.35 bars at different
rpms (gears).
I went down step by
step until I found out that G10 did not produce much
overboost then. But now
boost was not held that high and I had to increase the
Ratio of course. With
the much lower Gain setting, the Ratio can be set with
much smaller boost
increase per step. This allows a more precise tuning of the
system and the
driveability becomes better. I then got the best result with
G8/R48 that
peaked up to 1.05 bars and produced a steady boost of 1.00bars.
Back to
the table, we see differences in singe turbo and bi-turbo systems as
well as
with systems that are special controlled (sequential or with canisters
to
reduce lag). The later are showing a smaller Gain number as they provide
a
faster spool up due to their systems. The normal single turbo cars are
showing
the G20 to provide a better spool up. My experiences on the Autobahn
exactly
prove this and a Supra guy that uses the DSBC too says the same. Of
course our
cars have less boost in the OFF position (0.5kg) but the settings
and results
are close to the Chaser (JZX100).
I wrote a lot but just
wanted to say little : It is not recommended that Gain
and Ratio comes close
together. If you do so, then you'll get a lot of overboost
in some
situations. This especially belongs to part-throttle situations where
you
immediately floor it then and the turbos are already spooled up. Reducing
the
Gain will also reduce the response but finally it's better to get to the
max
desired boost as quick as possible and hold it there instead of running
into the
limiter that reduces the Ratio.
You know I found out ways to
play with the Gain/Ratio together with limiter and
scramble settings. But
when your engine is healthy the boost can jump quicker
from 0.5bars up to
1.3bars that your eyes can notice this ! So be aware of this
and start from
lower Gain settings when tuning it in. Try this like I did e.g.
in 3rd gear
around 4000 where the thing is like a rocket and you'll be fine
then
!
I hope this helps a little bit more to understand the DSBC :)
My pages will be
corrected with this information this
weekend.
Regards,
Roger
- -----------------------
Roger
Gerl, Switzerland
93'3000GT TwinTurbo (Animale Rosso)
K&N
FIPK,Magnecor wires,Blitz DSBC/gauge/Dual Timer,Apexi AFC,HKS SBOV,
ATR DP/
tespipe,Borla Cat-back,OZ Mito2 rims,Yoko AVS-Z1,braided brake lines,
Bremsa
brakes,Pagid RS-R pads
Check out: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/9589/3000gt.html
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:11:52 -0600
From: Merritt <merritt@cedar-rapids.net>
Subject:
Team3S: Spare wheels wanted for VR4
Does anyone have a spare set of
17 in. wheels that will fit a 94 VR4?
I need to mount up some racing
tires, so I'm not too particular what the
wheels look like,
but I don't
want anything that's bent.
I'll even take factory wheels with peeling
chrome.
I'll pay a reasonable amount for a set of four, peeling chrome
or not.
Please reply off list to: merritt@cedar-rapids.net
Rich/old
poop/94 VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:22:21 -0600
From: xwing <xwing@execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Speaking of fluids...
Ken Middaugh wrote:
> I put Redline Heavy
Shockproof in differential. Is OK?
> Is limited slip differential
supposed to have
> friction modifier?
I have it in rearend and
have noted no difference.
Jack T.
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web
page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:00:20 -0700
From: "Barry E. King" <beking@home.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
AFC Defence
You are right, the AFC - Air Flow Converter - does not
directly control
fuel. Neither does the HKS VPC nor the MASC. All
of these devices, as
pointed out in previous posts, work by intercepting and
adjusting the
frequency signal sent from the MAS to the ECU. Although
many of these
devices are referred to as "fuel controllers", I'm not sure who
if anyone
claimed it controlled fuel.
The big difference between the
AFC and the VPC or MASC is that the AFC
_does_ manipulate the airflow signal
_solely_ based on RPM. The VPC and
MASC manipulate the airflow signal
based on actual engine load, that is, the
amount of air being consumed by the
engine. The MASC doesn't watch RPM and
I do not believe the VPC does
either, but it may. Bob F. may be able to
answer this one as he has
actually reprogrammed the chips for these units.
The reason the AFC is
less "adequate" than a VPC or MASC is that the same
engine load can occur at
various RPMs depending upon the position of the
throttle plate and the amount
of work the engine is actually doing. This
can be observed cruising
along the highway in 6th at 2400 RPM with the
cruise control activate.
Watching the vaccuum gauge climb from say 10 in/Hg
to perhaps a few pounds of
boost as the car ascends a grade yet keeps the
RPMs pretty much
constant. The MASC displays relative airflow which makes
this
experiment even easier. In any case, RPMs have stayed the same yet
the
load has changed and therefore also the air and fuel requirements.
This is
where the AFC falls short.
Conversely, ignoring RPM is also
less than ideal since an engine's
volumetric efficiency also changes with
RPM. Mixture requirements also vary
with VE. Different loads
happen at different RPMs and VE changes with RPM
so...the ideal system uses a
"3D" fuel map.
The ECU of course does from the factory -- it measures load in
conjunction
RPM and calculates optimal fuel delivery. The ECU has the
benefit of being
programmed with known parameters for VE and for presumed
known fuel delivery
capability, basically it knows the size of the injectors
and the fuel
pressure. Speed/density systems also need to know this
information (which
is why VPCs have different chips for different setups)
while a pure airflow
system need not.
I ran an AFC with both stock
turbos and injectors (briefly) and then later
with 15Gs and 550s. The
AFC was great for tweaking the stock setup since it
was usually pretty close
anyway. It was able to get the 15G/550cc
injector/big fuel pump combo
running, which was a bonus, and in a reasonably
strong way, but it was not
able to eliminate all the little stumbles and
bumps for drivability and
wasn't able to squeeze out everything that was
available. Settings that
worked for running around town were different from
what was optimal for
running through the gears at WOT, which makes sense
since it ignores load and
the ECU cannot compensate because it thinks stock
injectors and fuel pressure
are in action. The MASC made a huge difference
and offers the best of
both worlds, good drivability and pretty close to
optimal WOT work. The
difference between the AFC and the MASC was the
ability to spin all four
tires on dry pavement through the 1-2 shift and
make them sing easily during
the 2-3 shift. It made that big of a
difference.
As to the
factory airmeter, they are unsurpassed for drivability and are
very
reliable. The vortex style airmeter is a high tech modern design
and
doesn't suffer from problems found in some other designs. Gutting
it is a
poorly conceived idea and can render the MAS unable to accurately
measure
airflow even though many people continue to do it with various
results from
crappy to allegedly great.
As has been demonstrated on
Pro-M's flow bench, the airmeter signal from the
factory MAS used on the 2G
Eclipse and 3/S cars begins to break up around
550-600 cfm. When it
breaks up the signal becomes erratic and typically
misses pulses. It is
also inherently more restrictive compared to a VPC
setup or hotwire airmeter,
but all in all works great for turbo cars since
the air is pretty much going
in no matter what anyway. A heavily modified
VR4 or Eclipse will
surpass 600 cfm. Most people with heavily modded VR4s
are using a VPC
so they never had to contend with the problem. The signal
stability
problem is the primary reason TRE offered the hotwire airmeter
option in the
first place, in addition to it flowing better.
BTW, if you reread the
original post I didn't claim the AFC was only
sufficient to get the car
running as your interpretation might imply, and in
fact made statements in
praise of the AFC. I used the AFC for quite a long
time before the TRE
MASC with decent results. It is just like any other
tool. When
used in the right manner and circumstances it works great. Take
it out
of its element and it may not work as anticipated.
Furthermore, the range
of adjustment for the AFC although generous for stock
injectors is limited
for larger injectors. 550s would be the absolute
maximum size at 50%
larger than the stock 365s. The AFC is actually
inadequate for them at
WOT where the car was STILL running rich even with
the AFC cranked fully
lean. The AFC would be totally inadequate with 720s.
For all out
serious performance on a heavily modified VR4, the AFC is in my
experience
far from an optimal choice albeit one of the few for the
1994+
models.
Hope that clears things
up.
Barry
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
Contrary to popular opinion, the Apex AFC dosn't control fuel by RPM.
It
> dosn't even control fuel. Fuel is still controlled by the
factory MAS/ECU
> (even under varying loads and conditions). Thats
why it works so
> well. The
> fact that it has seperate rpm
adjustments means you have more flexability
> (than you probably
need). The AFC would likely work sufficiently with one
> knob.
My setup has most of the knobs in identical positions
> across the
rpm
> band. To say it's only sufficient to get your car "running" is
incorrect.
> It works near perfectly for me. Why people go to the
trouble and
> expense to
> gut the factory MAS (one of the best MAS
designs BTW) confuses me. IMHP
> save your money and trouble, let
HKS (the Microsoft of aftermarket) go the
> way of the dinasour, and if
you must have that extra 10 HP,
> install nitrous.
>
>
Regards,
> DaveT/92TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page
is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:21:44 +0000
From: "R.G." <robby@swissonline.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: AFC Defence (ECU relearn ??)
I'm running the AFC in my car and
was able to squeeze out some horses on the
dyno. But during the latest
discussion the ECU cames back to the game. I spoke
with the Supra friend as
the MK-IV people had big discussion on this.
Main question : Tweaking the
ECU by intercepting the AF and sending a new
frequenzy works ... but how long
??
Some of the MK-IV guys just installed the Field controller that offers
A/F
control, G-Tech features and O2 monitor. They felt immediate response as
the
Supra runs very rich and with the help of the tool they where able to
lean it
out more. But after about one or two days some reported that the
power was gone
and the car was back to the rich side. Why ? We all know that
these cars do
learn by taking the A/F, barometric pressure and more and
therefore specifies
the offset in the fuel map. The Supras fuel map goes up
to 28psi and therefore
has a lot room for compensation. If the ECU is able to
learn during a time it
will understand that the car runs leaner than before
the A/F was tweaked and
readjusts the amount of fuel back to the rich side :(
If this is true than an
A/F tweaker doesn't help anything unless the O2
signal the ECU reads will be
tweaked too !
What do you think, will the
the ECU relearn and does the compensation ??
Discussion
opened...
Regards,
Roger
- -----------------------
Roger
Gerl, Switzerland
93'3000GT TwinTurbo (Animale Rosso)
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:28:13 -0500
From: "Trent" <rtrent@nlci.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
AFC Defence
Berry,
Thanks for the response, in
response:
>The big difference between the AFC and the VPC or
MASC is that the AFC
>_does_ manipulate the airflow signal _solely_ based
on RPM. The VPC and
>MASC manipulate the airflow signal based on
actual engine load, that is,
the
>amount of air being consumed by the
engine.
Response to varying load as well and the stock VE map is still
controlled by
the ECU. I can agree that if your mods have changed the
VE/RPM map then it
appears less than optimal, this is why the 5 ranges are
included.
>The reason the AFC is less "adequate" than a VPC or MASC is
that the same
>engine load can occur at various RPMs depending upon the
position of the
>throttle plate and the amount of work the engine is
actually doing. This
>can be observed cruising along
Again,
this is still controlled by the ECU. I can agree that the AFC can
fall
short if modifications are dramatic enough to render the factory ECU
maps
inaccurate, but this has not been the case for me. With 13g's @
18psi
and lucas 500's, the factory ECU/AFC performs flawlessly @ WOT after
dialing
in with EGT and O2. With the exception of an almost
imperceptable stumble
at 2500, it performs just like stock at idle and low
rpm. It's possible
that the pintle style 550's arn't as forgiving as
the disc injectors, but I
don't think the larger compressor wheel on the 15's
would effect the fuel
map that much.
>The MASC made a huge
difference
>and offers the best of both worlds, good drivability and
pretty close to
>optimal WOT work. The difference between the AFC
and the MASC was the
>ability to spin all four tires on dry pavement
through the 1-2 shift and
>make them sing easily during the 2-3
shift. It made that big of a
>difference.
Won't argue
with results. It's safe to say I'm not pumping as much air with
my
setup, most likely the reason the AFC has worked so well for me, but I
can't
help but wonder if your early AFC results would have been better if
you had
been running disc style injectors.
>As has been demonstrated on
Pro-M's flow bench, the airmeter signal from
the
>factory MAS used on
the 2G Eclipse and 3/S cars begins to break up around
>550-600 cfm.
When it breaks up the signal becomes erratic and typically
>misses
pulses
The 13g's are rated at 360 cfm @ 16 psi ea. according to TEC
(don't know
about the 15g's), so at an estimated 720 cfm I havn't noticed any
erratic
WOT performance so if there is an erractic signal, I havn't noticed
it. WOT
shows no variation in O2 voltage, EGT's are stable, pull is as
glitch free
as stock.
>Furthermore, the range of adjustment for the
AFC although generous for
stock
>injectors is limited for larger
injectors. 550s would be the absolute
>maximum size at 50% larger
than the stock 365s. The AFC is actually
>inadequate for them at WOT
where the car was STILL running rich even with
>the AFC cranked fully
lean.
Under those conditions, I would be inclined to think the injectors
are way
oversized for the rest of the mods in the first place.
BTW is
there some benefit to oversizing the injectors to the point where WOT
duty
cycle is significantly shorter at any given rpm than what the heads
(assuming
stock) where designed for?
I went with 500's because I wanted to maintain an
IDC as close to factory as
possible. I should think the goal would be
to increase fuel only as much as
is needed by other mods.
In the end, it
all comes down to air flow vs. cash flow. In my case, I'm
doing good
just maintaining ownership.
Regards,
DaveT/92TT
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:44:45 EST
From: Aso8@aol.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: Spare wheels
wanted for VR4
I have a set of used Factory 17x8.5 jj Alum Alloy 5 spoke
directionals. On
them are mounted a set of the Goodyear Eagles 245/45/ZR17.
If interested Email
me $500. all of them
Arty 91 VR-4
<<
Subj: Team3S: Spare wheels wanted for VR4
From: merritt@cedar-rapids.net
(Merritt)
Does anyone have a spare set of 17 in. wheels that
will fit a 94 VR4?
I need to mount up some racing tires, so I'm not too
particular what the
wheels look like,
but I don't want
anything that's bent. >>
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page
is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:45:46 -0700
From: "Barry E. King" <beking@home.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
AFC Defence (ECU relearn ??)
> -----Original Message-----
> I'm
running the AFC in my car and was able to squeeze out some
> horses on
the
> dyno. But during the latest discussion the ECU cames back to
the
> game. I spoke
> with the Supra friend as the MK-IV people had
big discussion on this.
>
> Main question : Tweaking the ECU by
intercepting the AF and sending a new
> frequenzy works ... but how long
??
>
> Some of the MK-IV guys just installed the Field controller
that offers A/F
> control, G-Tech features and O2 monitor. They felt
immediate
> response as the
> Supra runs very rich and with the help
of the tool they where
> able to lean it
> out more. But after about
one or two days some reported that the
> power was gone
> and the
car was back to the rich side. Why ?
<snipped>
> What do
you think, will the the ECU relearn and does the compensation ??
>
Discussion opened...
> Regards,
> Roger
I believe you are
correct. That's exactly what the ECU does, which is why
before AND
after setting the mixture the ECU should be reset. Someone with
an
Eclipse, a MASC and a Todd Day datalogger was experiencing this very
same
thing. He would get the MASC dialed in perfectly only to spend the
next
week having to tweak it and eventually start over again. He began
keeping
meticulous logs using the TDS logger and particularly watched fuel
trims.
In addition to "short term" fuel trim, a good thing, the ECU
makes
"permanent" long term trims which are applied before the feedback or
short
term trims are applied. When he reset the ECU both before and
asfter making
the adjustments the phenomenon quit. Keep in mind that
this is with a
modified setup, large injectors, high boost etc. This
was NOT happening for
most peope with close to stock setups.
Tricking
only the airflow the ECU sees usually only works within a certain
range of
values. The ECU watches RPM, water temperature, TPS and so on.
If
one of the values from any of these sensors doesn't make sense to the
ECU
when copared against the other sensors the ECU will usually throw a
code,
possibly turn on the CE light and may even begin to ignore the sensor
it
believes is out of whack. This makes a good argument for a
reprogammed ECU
in conjunction with some means of making manual fine
adjustments.
Older ECUs are less sensitive to this but newer (especially
ODB-II) can be
very picky. When I got my MASC dialed in I no longer had
any codes or CE
lights but was able to get them at will just by making too
big of an
adjustment. Resetting the ECU both before and after tuning
made the
difference. Another approach would be to fiddle with all the
sensors and
tell the ECU what it wants to see, but without knowing everything
the ECU is
doing this would be a rather difficult task and even then messy at
best.
Regards,
Barry
For subscribe/unsubscribe info,
our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:53:32 +0100
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mikael_=C5kesson?="
<vr4@bahnhof.se>
Subject: Team3S:
Dyno charts
Just wanted to say that my homepage now is updated with the
charts from my DYNO test.
http://www.bahnhof.se/~vr4
/mikael
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:48:43 EST
From: Aso8@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: Update Tranny
Output Shaft
I called Jack T's suggestion and was able to buy a new 5 spd
Tranny Output
Shaft
from Kormex. The price was only $300.00 Vs. $485. here
in the NY Area. In
addition, as Jack said, this shaft is suposed to be
stronger/harder then the
stock shaft.
I'm going to try opening the tranny
to see if this is a do it yourself
possibility?
Jack, thanks again. When
do you have time for work?
Btw, Kormex Trans parts Tel. # 800-429-5464
They had both size splines too.
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page
is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:04:18 -0600
From: "Brad Bedell" <bbedell@austin.rr.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Update Tranny Output Shaft
Take pictures and document the
whole procedure. It should be a DYI job. I
just have not had a
chance to tear into one yet.
> Brad
Member of ESSC since
1999>
> Check out my home page: http://lonestar.texas.net/~bbedell
>
E-Mail: bbedell@austin.rr.com
ICQ# 3612682
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
[mailto:owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com]
On Behalf Of Aso8@aol.com
Sent: Saturday,
February 13, 1999 12:49 PM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Cc:
Aso8@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: Update Tranny
Output Shaft
I called Jack T's suggestion and was able to buy a new 5 spd
Tranny Output
Shaft
from Kormex. The price was only $300.00 Vs. $485. here
in the NY Area. In
addition, as Jack said, this shaft is suposed to be
stronger/harder then the
stock shaft.
I'm going to try opening the tranny
to see if this is a do it yourself
possibility?
Jack, thanks again. When
do you have time for work?
Btw, Kormex Trans parts Tel. # 800-429-5464
They had both size splines too.
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page
is
http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:02:28 EST
From: Aso8@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: Transfer case
question on the 25 spline model
I know the tranny on my 5 spd 91VR4 can
have either the 18 or 25 fin output
spline & the transfer case needs to
match. I already know mine is the smaller
18 spline.
Is the transfer
case the same (if its the 25 fin spline) on both the 5 spd and
the 6 spd
later models? In other words, If I were lucky enough to already have
the 25
spline transfer case could I reuse it with the newer 6 spd tranny?
Arty 91
VR-4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:28:03 EST
From: Aso8@aol.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: Update
Tranny Output Shaft
I'll do my best to try & photo the opened up 5
spd tranny. I hope I don't see
springs popping out all over the place as the
case opens. I sure hope I don't
see any other problems. I was looking for a
6spd to do a swap but can't fine
one available.
Arty
<< Subj:
RE: Team3S: Update Tranny Output Shaft
From: bbedell@austin.rr.com (Brad
Bedell)
Take pictures and document the whole procedure. It
should be a DYI job. I
just have not had a chance to tear into
one yet.
> Brad
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Cc:
Aso8@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: Update
Tranny Output Shaft
I called Jack T's suggestion and was able
to buy a new 5 spd Tranny Output
Shaft
from Kormex. The price
was only $300.00 Vs. $485. here in the NY Area. In
addition, as Jack
said, this shaft is suposed to be stronger/harder then the
stock
shaft.
I'm going to try opening the tranny to see if this is a do it
yourself
possibility?
Jack, thanks again. When do you have
time for work?
Btw, Kormex Trans parts Tel. # 800-429-5464 They
had both size splines too.
Arty 91 Vr-4
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:46:48 -0700
From: "Barry E. King" <beking@home.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
AFC Defence
> -----Original Message-----
> Thanks for the
response, in response:
>
> >The big difference between the
AFC and the VPC or MASC is that the AFC
> >_does_ manipulate the
airflow signal _solely_ based on RPM. The VPC and
> >MASC
manipulate the airflow signal based on actual engine load, that is,
>
the
> >amount of air being consumed by the engine.
>
>
Response to varying load as well and the stock VE map is still
>
controlled by
> the ECU. I can agree that if your mods have changed
the VE/RPM
> map then it
> appears less than optimal, this is why
the 5 ranges are included.
Simply adding boost changes the VE/RPM
map. I do not know how high the 3/S
ECU maps pressure, I assume it is
at least 15 psi and probably a bit higher.
Presumably the stock ECU can
handle it. Most ECUs however simply quite
mapping beyond 4000
RPM. After that point they dump as much fuel in as
possible which is
why the 3/S cars (and most cars in general) are so bloody
rich up
top.
The five ranges of adjustment only affect airflow in a particular
fixed RPM
range. For example, let's say we start running 21 psi.
The load has
increased a huge amount, almost double, across the entire RPM
range. That's
when you're under boost obviously. Adjust the AFC
for this condition and
all is well. Now drive around at various RPMs
without opening it up much
(therefore not seeing much boost). The load
is much less and yet the AFC is
still dialed in for the high 21 psi load
conditions and telling the ECU that
the load is even LESS than what it really
is. The ECU reads from its maps
based on the information given to
it. The 3/S ECU relies heavily on the
airmeter, unlike say a speed
density system. Since we have told the ECU
that load has changed solely
based on RPM the ECU is getting radically
different information than when we
dialed it in for full-on 21 psi
operation. There is some happy medium
and I was able to use the AFC
effectively, but the AFC design is the right
idea with the wrong
implementation. It wasn't until after the MASC was
installed that I saw
just how far off the AFC really
was.
<snipped>
> Won't argue with results. It's
safe to say I'm not pumping as
> much air with
> my setup, most
likely the reason the AFC has worked so well for me, but I
> can't help
but wonder if your early AFC results would have been better if
> you had
been running disc style injectors.
I won't argue with results
either. If you are happy with the results from
the AFC then all is
good.
As to the injectors, I don't know for a fact but I doubt they would
make the
dramatic of a difference in this case. I don't have any other
indicators
that would point to performance issues with the Lucas 550s I
used.
Especially given the fact that the MASC made any troubles I
experienced
disappear.
<snipped>
> The 13g's are rated
at 360 cfm @ 16 psi ea. according to TEC (don't know
> about the 15g's),
so at an estimated 720 cfm I havn't noticed any erratic
> WOT performance
so if there is an erractic signal, I havn't
> noticed it.
WOT
> shows no variation in O2 voltage, EGT's are stable, pull is as
glitch free
> as stock.
I was able to tune around the stumbles with
the AFC but at a compromise of
outright WOT performance. Acceptable WOT
performance meant compromising
drivability. This all makes sense since
that's the inherent difference
between adjusting perceived load solely based
on RPM vs. adjusting actual
load.
Note that the airmeter will only see
what flows through the intake tract.
Turbo flow rates are kind of a tricky
subject. Anyway, 15Gs allegedly push
404 cfm at 15 psi. Clealry
just becuase the boost gauge says 15 psi does
not infer the engine is
consuming 808 CFM. Engine air consumption varies
with load (manifold
pressure more or less) as corrected by the VE map at a
given RPM.
Forced induction engines can raise effective VE by adding boost.
>
>Furthermore, the range of adjustment for the AFC although generous
for
> stock
> >injectors is limited for larger injectors.
550s would be the absolute
> >maximum size at 50% larger than the stock
365s. The AFC is actually
> >inadequate for them at WOT where the
car was STILL running rich even with
> >the AFC cranked fully
lean.
>
> Under those conditions, I would be inclined to think the
injectors are way
> oversized for the rest of the mods in the first
place.
Not necessarily. What is really happening is the larger
injectors are
exceding the off-boost or low load range of the fuel maps and
exceeding the
ability of whatever device is being used to control
mixture. So you are
right in one sense in that drivability is severely
compromised, but full
load conditions is another issue. Under load, say
21 psi and above, 550s
are marginal and likely too small for safety.
The figures I come up with
are 680cc. With 550s, 15Gs etc. it was not
hard to push the injectors above
90% IDC at less than full boost.
500-550 cc injectors are probably adequate
for moderate boost levels but will
leave little headroom for expansion.
> BTW is there some benefit to
oversizing the injectors to the
> point where WOT duty cycle is
significantly shorter at any given rpm
> than what the heads (assuming
stock) where designed for?
I assume you are asking if it is better to run
lower IDC than higher. If
that is what you mean then yes, it is
generally accepted that running
injectors much above 80% IDC for anything
other than short bursts can cause
premature injector failure. If an
engine needs 500 cc/min of fuel delivery
at maxium load then an injecotr of
625cc/min is what should be used.
> I went with 500's because I wanted
to maintain an IDC as close to
> factory as possible. I should think
the goal would be to increase fuel
only
> as much as is needed by other
mods.
Of course. Throwing more fuel in if it will not be used only
wastes fuel.
It depends a lot on the target horsepower. For 600 HP a
680cc injector is
in the ballpark. A 550 would be too small for
safety.
> In the end, it all comes down to air flow vs. cash
flow. In my case, I'm
> doing good just maintaining
ownership.
> Regards,
> DaveT/92TT
Understood. My
point is that if someone is making choices to modify an
engine and keep it
safe then certain things should be considered and
expectations should be
appropriate. It really all depends on what one wants
when they are
done.
I stand by my orginal contention that the AFC is a good
intermediate
controller. It is reasonably inexpensive, easy to use and
works for what it
was designed to do. I do not believe it is the
optimal choice for a
"heavily modified" VR4. Many people seem to be
bypassing 13Gs and going
straight to 15Gs, which I believe to be a prudent
choice given that 15Gs can
be had for not much more than 13Gs.
Unleashing the full potential of 15Gs
means lots of fuel and 550s aren't the
answer based on what I have observed
and if that is the case, the AFC
wouldn't be the right
choice.
Regards,
Barry
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:19:09 -0600
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: Team3S: What
year is best to buy?
I'm looking at upgrading back up into a VR4 from my
Eclipse GSX. I
previously had a '94 VR4. If I'm thinking of
upgrading the car into the 400
HP range, which year is best to start
with? On the Eclipse, in '92 they
upgraded a bunch of driveline stuff,
and in '93 the tranny got a little
smoother. Is there a similar set of
years on the 3K's that I should watch
out for? Thanks in advance for
the advice!
- -Matt
'93 Eclipse GSX (12.89@105.3)
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
End
of Team3S Digest V1 #100
****************************
For unsubscribe
info and FAQ, see our web page at http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm