--

From: owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com (Team3S Digest)
To: stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
Subject: Team3S Digest V1 #215
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 Friday, June 25 1999 Volume 01 : Number 215

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:41:58 -0700
From: "Gross, Erik" <erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: Team3S: Replace spark plug wires at 60K?

Dealer says they don't need to be replaced at 60K, and I know I've heard
many of you talk about replacing the wires at 60K, mainly on the TTs. So
with my NA, should I bother to replace them at 60K, or are the old ones
still fine? And if I should replace them, then stock($53@Norco)or
Magancore($129@Nexus)? I don't mind paying a little more for better
parts/performance, but are the Magnacores significantly better than stock
for a NA? $80 isn't quite pocket change...:)

- --Erik

- ------ ----------
Erik Gross DuPont, WA
'95 Pearl White 3000GT 56k mi stock + SZ50 245/50/ZR16 tires
- ------ ----------
"To believe in the supernatural is not simply to believe that
after living a successful, material, and fairly virtuous
life here one will continue to exist in the best-possible
substitute for this world, or that after living a starved
and stunted life here one will be compensated with all the
good things one has gone without: it is to believe that the
supernatural is the greatest reality here and now."
 --T. S. Eliot
- -------------------------------------------------------------

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:56:46 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Electric Supercharger

you may obtain equal or better results by applying snake oil to your tail
pipe.

an electric motor at 40A will not give you even 1HP increase. (the
additional load on your alternator will probably cost you few HP)

40A is about 1/2 HP. you need at least 10 HP to give any noticable boost to
your engine. That is a power requirement of over 1000A (considering these
devices are not 100% efficient).

even TurboDyne electric turbochargers of several hundred amperes can only
give small boost to 1.2 liter engines and that is at low rpm.

I consider this product at the same catagory as magnets that you attach over
your fuel lines for ionization of gasoline atoms (sic) and solid state
turbocharger, which is something like a gel pack that you install inside
your air filter.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:07:48 -0500
From: Merritt <merritt@cedar-rapids.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Electric Supercharger details (long, but pls read)

Sounds like the infamous Kirby vacuum cleaner installation all over again.

As I recall, we planned to mount a big Kirby at the rear, to suck exhaust
gases out of the engine and make the turbos spool up faster.

Oughta work about as good as this silly electric supercharger.

Rich/old poop/94 VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:27:56 -0400
From: Michael Booker <mrbook@gate.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: NT Engine mods... (looong and maybe also for TTs)

Good idea, Roger. You have got me thinking. I was thinking about
mounting a single turbo at the place where the front and rear
"downpipes" come together. Then, the intake could be situated so that
you could run an inlet straight up, and put a small hood scoop, and an
airbox, witha K&N drop-in filter, so the filter will be mounted flush
with the hood. The outlet could be routed to a single small or
front-mount intercooler, and the return could be made from.....That's
where I can't finish the idea. The MAS could be mounted right below the
airbox, and it would get a good reading. Any custom fabricators out
there? Any ideas on a rubber or otherwise tube that'll get the charge
air from the intercooler to the TB?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:14:18 -0700
From: "Gross, Erik" <erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: Team3S: Electric Supercharger, part II

Ok, Ok, hang on a minute here...

<snipping numerous comments about snake oil, Kirby vacuums, ionization of
gasoline molecules and waving magic wands :) >

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murat Okcuoglu [mailto:murat@ashacorp.com]
>
> an electric motor at 40A will not give you even 1HP increase. (the
> additional load on your alternator will probably cost you few HP)
>
> you need at least 10 HP to give any noticable boost to your engine.
> That is a power requirement of over 1000A

> even TurboDyne electric turbochargers of several hundred
> amperes can only
> give small boost to 1.2 liter engines and that is at low rpm.

Ok, you had me for a second - "what was I thinking- I must be a moron!"

1HP = 745W = 13.5V * 55A

So if the engine were powered by pushing air into the cylinders, this would
mean we'd need 551A of current for 10%HP increase if the E-RAM were 100%
efficient. Boy, did I feel like a moron...for a second.

But the engine is *not* powered (directly) by pushing air into it,
it's powered by the combustion of the gasoline in the cylinders which used
the available air in the system. If your theory were all there was to it,
conventional (engine-driven) superchargers *wouldn't* work! i.e. engine
expends x HP to drive supercharger compressor, resulting in more airflow
into the engine, but if the increased HP resulting from the supercharger was
equal to or less than the HP required to drive the compressor, this wouldn't
work, would it?

So the real equation would look something like this
(pardon me if this isn't exactly correct, but as best as I remember from
chemistry and physics...and yes they're assuming ideal combustion and
simplified a bit):

Energy expended: 100A * 13.5V = 1350W = 1.8HP
(some of this may come from the stored energy of the battery,
but...)

Output Power(normally):
1.000 * (# O2 and gasoline molecules combusted/sec) * some constant
constant is related to the stored energy in the C,H, and O bonds in
gas
Output Power (with E-RAM):
assuming ambient pressure of 14psi and E-RAM generating 2psi
(2/14 = 14.3%)
(1.143) * (# O2 and gasoline molecules combusted/sec) * some constant

This means the resultant power could theoretically be as high as 14.3%
higher than stock. Due to engine inefficiencies, 10% (70% efficient)
doesn't seem that far-fetched. So you expend 1.8HP and have a net gain 10%
(22HP). They've got dyno sheets on their website...I know these could be
faked, but what if they're legit? The power gained is the result of the
additional *fuel* able to be burned with the increased airflow, which
doesn't have a 1:1 ratio with the power required to compress the air at the
intake.

If someone more versed in chem and physics than I can point out a hole in
the above argument, please do! And if the above is correct, then anyone
have any thoughts on the 2 issues I mentioned in the first post?

- --Erik

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:23:18 -0400
From: Steve Sullivan <Sully@Carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Team3S: RPS Clutch

Brad,

I haven't had much sucess with the RPS clutchs either. I have eaten 2
of them up in less than 10,000 miles. In fact the 1st one went so quick
Rob replaced it under warranty. Now the replacement is gone.. I am
going to have to go a diffeent route this time.

Sully

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:31:15 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Team3S: Injectors, fuel, pump calculations

As promised here the link to the Excel sheet I've put together :

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/9589/Injector_calculations.xls

Short description :

You can change the values in the top three lines. Just enter an IDC of 100%
and see the figures changing for the injector.

The values under the IDC% header represent the possible hp retrieved by the
given amount of fuel.

The individual pages are containing the fuel flow at the specific boost with
the injector at the desired IDC and the resulting hp.

The injectors are rated at 43.5 psi fuel pressure.

The pump information was taken from the Walboro pump site.

Example 1 :

- - 360cc , 15 psi
=> 56 psi fuel pres.
=> 408ccm/inj.
=> 403hp @ 95% IDC
=> 37 gal/hr fuel flow
=> stock pump delivers 33 gal/hr
=> fuel pump too small (would be ok as the real figures are higher)

Example 2 :

- - 560cc , 17 psi
=> 58 psi fuel pres.
=> 647ccm/inj.
=> 537hp @ 80% IDC
=> 49.3 gal/hr fuel flow
=> 255 ltr/hr pump delivers 51 gal/hr
=> system is ok and is capable of 537 hp at 17 psi
 (due to dumping fuel in for preventing detonation the hp figure will be
way below 500hp)

You can also change the injector size by entering a new value in the field
with the yellow background and red figures.

Let me know if there is anything wrong or missing :)
Please feel free to distribute or change the contents on your wish but do
not change a formula and leave my name in there ;-)

Regards
Roger
93'3000GT TT (WI System arrived today)

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:36:46 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Team3S: elecric blower

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BEBE5F.C00B5010
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

OK, I guess I was not clear.

the HP figures I stated are for power required to compress air to
significant pressures at sufficient volumes. They are not power =
conversion
for the engine. Think about how much power is required to run a belt =
driven
supercharger?

I am certain that our 3 liter engine will overflow that axial fan right
above idle.

an engineer who used to work for me now develops the real versions of =
these
devices.

with the help of several batteries and inverters and associated stuff of
100+lbs and trunk size volume, the net benefit is slight power increase =
at
low (1500 to 2500) rpms and some emission reduction for diesels under =
hard
acceleration.

Think about it, if there was any hope, why would not every vehicle on =
the
road have one? In mass production, those devices should cost less than a
power antenna.

- ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BEBE5F.C00B5010
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>OK, I guess I was not clear. the HP figures I =
stated=20
are for power required to compress air to significant pressures at =
sufficient=20
volumes. They are not power conversion for the engine. Think about =
how much=20
power is required to run a belt driven supercharger? I am =
certain that=20
our 3 liter engine will overflow that axial fan right above =
idle. an=20
engineer who used to work for me now develops the real versions of=20
these devices. with the help of several batteries and =
inverters and=20
associated stuff of 100+lbs and trunk size volume, the net benefit is =
slight=20
power increase at low (1500 to 2500) rpms and some emission reduction =
for=20
diesels under hard acceleration. Think about it, if there was =
any=20
hope, why would not every vehicle on the road have one? In mass =
production,=20
those devices should cost less than a power=20
antenna. </DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BEBE5F.C00B5010--

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:04:38 -0700
From: "Gross, Erik" <erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: elecric blower

- -----Original Message-----
From: Murat Okcuoglu [mailto:murat@ashacorp.com]

I am certain that our 3 liter engine will overflow that axial fan right
above idle.

an engineer who used to work for me now develops the real versions of these
devices.

with the help of several batteries and inverters and associated stuff of
100+lbs and trunk size volume, the net benefit is slight power increase at
low (1500 to 2500) rpms and some emission reduction for diesels under hard
acceleration.

Think about it, if there was any hope, why would not every vehicle on the
road have one? In mass production, those devices should cost less than a
power antenna.
- --------------------------------

Ok, I'm not trying to get into a heated argument or step on any toes here,
but I want to understand why this blower can't work. As for the engine
overflowing the fan, I don't know the rate at which our engines pull air in,
but is 350CFM a reasonable number for a NA 3.0L DOHC? If so, then this is
from their website:

"The e-RAM is capable of producing an impressive flow of 750 cfm in free
air. For an example, a 4 liter engine draws about 350 CFM at 6000 rpm. The
e-RAM easily produces that airflow with plenty to spare!"

and also

"Unlike others that claim to work, but have no dyno proof, we have installed
this unit on 4 cylinder engines through V8s and have made multiple runs on a
chassis dyno (Dynojet 248e) with and without the supercharger running. On a
3.2 liter engine with a dyno tested base of 200 horsepower, gains throughout
the entire RPM range were from 8-13 HP for an average increase of 4-6%!
(Dyno run data with graphs are provided at our web site:
www.electricsupercharger.com)"

When they say stuff like this, and have the graphs that indicate their
claims, I at least want to find out more about it... I definitely don't
have all the answers(that's why I'm asking questions:), but it sounds like a
good idea, if it works. And they seem to provide proof that it does. I'm
definitely not what most would call an "impulse buyer," nor do I make
uninformed expenditures of hundreds of dollars. At least on the surface
this company seems to have something, an I want to find out what's
underneath. I'm going to check the company out, because their guarantee is
pretty good. If I try it out and it doesn't give me 4-6% more HP across the
board, then I can send it back for a full refund of everything but the
shipping, AND I'm only out 1/2 my dyno fee ($55 for 2 runs). At $50 for
shipping and 1/2 of the dyno, I think I'd be willing to bite if the
company's legit.

- --Erik
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:12:56 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@swissonline.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Water Injection data

>can't argue the fact that the boost gauge pegged 1.3 to 1.39 and the A/F
>gauge was still in the rich area and the car was pulling strong.

Sure, but how about any unburnt fuel and therefore the O2 sensor causes to see
rich ??

>The water that is being injected is a 50/50 split between water and alcohol.
>The alcohol is also acting like fuel. Therefore adding to the combusion.

A mixture of water and alcohol is only necessary in colder regions to prevent
the mixture from freezing. If sprayed in the mixture takes up the heat energy
from the air but the alcohol does not act as additional fuel but it seems to
increase the efficiency of the WI. I try to find better information on the
mixture thing :)

>I've got one other quick question on your Blitz DSBC installation. I
>followed your instructions to the T when I installed mine. Did you cap off
>the stock solinoid when you hooked up the Blitz?

I haven't done this in my initial installation as I had no caps for the solenoid
port handy :) The effect is that the Gain setting will be different for sure as
this is what the stock solenoid does. It is out of the path since a longer time
now :)

Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:13:02 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@swissonline.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: elecric blower

> Think about it, if there was any hope, why would not every vehicle on the
> road have one? In mass production, those devices should cost less than a
> power antenna.

And why did Mitsu install such a stupid sized MAS instead of a good flowing
thing ?? Well, let's find out what is behind the ELB stuff with "real" facts !

Airflow is the keyword here. Lets say that the thing would be able to create 1
psi of boost even at 6000 rpm.

The formula without blower is :

182in^3 * 6000rpm * 0.5 *0.9 * 1 (0 bars of boost)) / 1728 = 284 cfm
182in^3 * 7000rpm * 0.5 *0.9 * 1 (0 bars of boost)) / 1728 = 332 cfm

The formula with blower at 1 psi is :

182in^3 * 6000rpm * 0.5 *0.9 * 1.07 (0.07 bars of boost)) / 1728 = 304 cfm
182in^3 * 7000rpm * 0.5 *0.9 * 1.07 (0.07 bars of boost)) / 1728 = 355 cfm

Therefore the question is simple :
How much pressure can the ELB produce at 304-355cfm ???

At 7krpm, 1 psi increases air flow by 23cfm in our cars = 7% increase
Looking at the fuel table we see that 1 psi increase in the lower area is
capable to a 4 hp increase from the addtional fuel pressure what is about 2%.

We therefore "can expect" 7% more fuel due to the more air and 2% more energy
due to the increased fuel pressure. But this cannot be counted together as the
2% figure only tells us what the fuel system is capable of and for sure the NA
system is not at its end with 1 psi of boost :)

Therefore lets say we can expect 6% (7% * 0.9, efficiency) more horsepower
=> 222 * 1.06 = 235.2

Now, back to power consumption : 40A * 14.1V (charging voltage) => 564W = 0.8hp
Therefore, this gives us a final gain of :

=> 235.2 - 222 = 13.32
=> 13.32 - 0.8 = 12.52 hp (5.6%) increase

Ok, this is again mathematical stuff but a good base to start. No negative
things like snake oil, gel packs or any Kirby stuff, just REAL figures and
calculations.

Of course, the possible 5.6% power increase is based upon the asumption that the
ELB does deliver the appropriate amount of air at the specified pressure ! If
they do, 235.2 hp are possible !

Please remember, not the ELB creates the more power but the fuel does ! But it
helps to increase the necessary air flow that results in more fuel to be burnt.

BTW, at least one of such systems have already been installed in an NA but I
can't remember who it was :( There was also a website with the installation but
my desk is currently covered with math and other books :)

Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:13:10 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@swissonline.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Differences DSBC vs SSBC

>I'm wondering what the technical differences are between these two units.
>Obviously, one less solenoid, for starters, and less boost, but what else
>is there? I'm in the market for a BC, but I'd like to know what's what.

The difference is indeed the solenoids at first and only one of this tiny things
cannot handle more than 1.2bars of boost. Then there are only two settings
storeable, no boost gauge, no peak, no scramble, etc. IMHO, with a price below
$400 the DSBC is one of the best choice and the SSBC has never been an option on
the market !

>(Anyone seen less than $450 for Blitz? Is there a brand other than Blitz
>that you'd recommend?)

- - Apexi S-AVCR
- - HK$ EVC (the one with barometric correction)

Regards,
Roger
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 06:53:27 -0500
From: "Basol, John" <jbasol@Carlson.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: elecric blower

"Unlike others that claim to work, but have no dyno proof, we have
installed
this unit on 4 cylinder engines through V8s and have made multiple
runs on a
chassis dyno (Dynojet 248e) with and without the supercharger
running. On a
3.2 liter engine with a dyno tested base of 200 horsepower, gains
throughout
the entire RPM range were from 8-13 HP for an average increase of
4-6%!
(Dyno run data with graphs are provided at our web site:
www.electricsupercharger.com)"

This is just a thought, but spending $3-400 to acquire 8-13hp doesn't sound
like a very big HP/$ gain. The K&N air filters are claimed to provide about
a 10hp difference. Now, I never ran my car on a dyno before and after the
installation of the K&N to know what the net result was, but couldn't really
feel any difference because of the K&N, and I've put them on 2 cars, with
the same result both times. For $3-400 I want to feel what I paid for.

For $500 a memeber of our local 3S club purchased a nitrous oxide kit for
his SL. I helped him install it, starting first with the 50hp jets. It was
feelable, but not what I would call impressive. We then switched the jets
out to the 75hp jets, feeling comfortable that everything was hooked up
right and working well. That gave it a bit more. Now in theory he should
have been in excess of 300hp, as his 222hp motor has now been fitted with a
K&N and a 75hp nitrous kit. That was what I would consider a noticeable
power increase, and it still wasn't like being shot out of gun when he hit
the button. But I guess maybe I had high expectations for what the nitrous
would do.

I guess my whole point would be that you may find that although your
legitimate dyno run produced 8-13 more hp, your results from the 'Butt-Dyno'
might not impress you to the $300 mark. Food for thought. :)

- -John

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:04:32 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: RE: Team3S: elecric blower

>Ok, I'm not trying to get into a heated argument or step on any toes here,
>but I want to understand why this blower can't work.

No, the thing works indeed and is proven by some installations, but it is not very cost effective and some cut&paste
within the intake path must be done :)

>but is 350CFM a reasonable number for a NA 3.0L DOHC?

~355cfm at 7000rpm

>"The e-RAM is capable of producing an impressive flow of 750 cfm in free air.

The important figure must be xxx cfm @ 1 psi. This mumber is what we need !

BTW, one of my Camaro buddies installed a TeZett electric fan (another ELB) in his 3.4 liter and felt a slight
improvement and especially a better throttle response. It is activated above a specific rpm.

>3.2 liter engine with a dyno tested base of 200 horsepower, gains throughout
>the entire RPM range were from 8-13 HP for an average increase of 4-6%!

Yes, sure. My maths do show that this is possible and I believe you'll find some more ponies at the wheels on the NAs.
Everybody who claims that it "can't" work should try it out. Fact is, that the air compressed to 1 psi is hotter than
without such a blower and this decreases the possible power a little. But this is mostly compensated by the more fuel
injected and the NAs can handle this.

>I'm definitely not what most would call an "impulse buyer," nor do I make
>uninformed expenditures of hundreds of dollars.

Rich installed a Turbo-Zet in Rommel Dizons car (you're not the Guinea pig :)) and this is what he wrote then :

> I installed a TurboZet (I think this is what you are referring to) on
> Rommel Dizon's NT this summer. Rommel and I did some G-Tech runs with
> and without the TZ, plus Rommel did some other testing on his own.
> Bottom line: you pay big bux, you get a little more air, perhaps a *tad*
> more response, and a touch better on your times. The net gain/$ ratio
> were measurable, but pretty darn low. Results of the TZ experiments
> were posted to Starnet at least twice that I am aware of. Check the
> archives there for them.

Well, this is what I'd say a little gain around 4-5% but nobody spoke of more to get yet (don't read the Turbo-Zet page...
they want to tell us about a 25% increase, hehe)
Their page can be found at http://www.turbo-zet.com/

>If I try it out and it doesn't give me 4-6% more HP across the
>board, then I can send it back for a full refund of everything but the
>shipping, AND I'm only out 1/2 my dyno fee ($55 for 2 runs). At $50 for
>shipping and 1/2 of the dyno, I think I'd be willing to bite if the
>company's legit.

Well, just make sure that you don't have to cut any stock parts so you can go back without problems :)

Regards,
Roger
__________________________

Roger Gerl, Switzerland
93'3000GT TwinTurbo
. going the wet way now !

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:00:14 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Injectors, fuel, pump calculations

I'm sorry not give you the formulas and explanations to the Excel sheet I built. Here they are :

BSFC = brake specific fuel consumption. This is how much fuel (in gal) an engine is "consuming" per hp per hour. This is
typicaly between 0.4 and 0.5 for NA cars and 0.5 to 0.6 on turbo cars.

IDC = injector duty cycle. Typically at 80% an injector is getting to be maxed out. Futher 10% should be taken as a
reserve :)

cc/m (injector rating) = lbs/hr * 10.5
lbs/hr = gal/hr * 6

capable hp = (lbs/hr * IDC * #cyl) / (BSFC) or
capable hp = (cc/m * IDC * #cyl) / (BSFC * 10.5)

pressurised injector flow rate = SQ(new fpr / old fpr) * old flow rate

The field references with the $ signs in the fomula are fixed references to that field. This means, copying the field to another
place does keep the field reference. This is spreadsheet specific and has nothing to do with the formulas :)

Please feel free to ask anything you like or maybe what you want to have added to it :)

Regards,
Roger (playing with water pump at the moment)
__________________________

Roger Gerl, Switzerland
93'3000GT TwinTurbo
. going the wet way now !

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:05:30 -0500
From: "Basol, John" <jbasol@Carlson.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Injectors, fuel, pump calculations

It would appear that this formula is pretty reliant on an accurate BSFC
value. Where do we get this value for our cars? And is the value the same
at all levels of boost, and all values of temp? We all now that on a nice
cool evening the car makes more power, but is it consuming more fuel? I
doubt it. Just some thoughts.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: R.G. [SMTP:robby@freesurf.ch]
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 10:00 AM
> To: jbasol@carlson.com; stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
> Subject: RE: Team3S: Injectors, fuel, pump calculations
>
> I'm sorry not give you the formulas and explanations to the Excel sheet I
> built. Here they are :
>
> BSFC = brake specific fuel consumption. This is how much fuel (in gal) an
> engine is "consuming" per hp per hour. This is
> typicaly between 0.4 and 0.5 for NA cars and 0.5 to 0.6 on turbo cars.
>
> IDC = injector duty cycle. Typically at 80% an injector is getting to be
> maxed out. Futher 10% should be taken as a
> reserve :)
>
> cc/m (injector rating) = lbs/hr * 10.5
> lbs/hr = gal/hr * 6
>
> capable hp = (lbs/hr * IDC * #cyl) / (BSFC) or
> capable hp = (cc/m * IDC * #cyl) / (BSFC * 10.5)
>
> pressurised injector flow rate = SQ(new fpr / old fpr) * old flow rate
>
> The field references with the $ signs in the fomula are fixed references
> to that field. This means, copying the field to another
> place does keep the field reference. This is spreadsheet specific and has
> nothing to do with the formulas :)
>
> Please feel free to ask anything you like or maybe what you want to have
> added to it :)
>
> Regards,
> Roger (playing with water pump at the moment)
> __________________________
>
> Roger Gerl, Switzerland
> 93'3000GT TwinTurbo
> . going the wet way now !
>
> 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: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:05:37 +0200
From: Matthews <matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Differences DSBC vs SSBC

"R.G." wrote:
>
> >I'm wondering what the technical differences are between these two units.
> >Obviously, one less solenoid, for starters, and less boost, but what else
> >is there? I'm in the market for a BC, but I'd like to know what's what.
>
> The difference is indeed the solenoids at first and only one of this tiny things
> cannot handle more than 1.2bars of boost. Then there are only two settings
> storeable, no boost gauge, no peak, no scramble, etc. IMHO, with a price below
> $400 the DSBC is one of the best choice and the SSBC has never been an option on
> the market !

Why would maximum boost pressure be a function of the solonoid? All the
solonoid has to do is vent the hose to shoot pressure through the roof!
I would think the solonoid would impact responsiveness and perhaps
overboost management.

- --
Jim Matthews - Wiesbaden, Germany
matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de (64 Kbps ISDN)
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews

*** 3000GT-Stealth International (3Si) Member #0030 ***
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews/stealth.html
Jet Black '94 Dodge Stealth R/T Twin-Turbo AWD AWS 6-spd
Adjustable Active Suspension, Adjustable Exhaust System
K&N FIPK, A'PEXi Super AVC-R (1.0 bar @ 72% BADC)
A'PEXi Turbo Timer (30 sec), Blitz Blow-Off Valve
Magnecore spark plug wires, Redline ShockProof fluids
Metal Matrix brake pads, custom braided brake lines
Michelin Pilot XGT-Z4 245/45ZR17, Top Speed: 168mph
G-Tech Pro: 0-60 4.79 sec, 1/4 13.16 sec @ 113.9 mph
1 Feb 99 Dyno Session: 406 SAE HP, 354 lb-ft torque

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:16:22 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: RE: Team3S: elecric blower

>The K&N air filters are claimed to provide about
>a 10hp difference. Now, I never ran my car on a dyno before and after the
>installation of the K&N to know what the net result was, but couldn't really
>feel any difference because of the K&N, and I've put them on 2 cars, with
>the same result both times. For $3-400 I want to feel what I paid for.

Exactly my words ! I agree 150% with you :)

>That gave it a bit more. Now in theory he should
>have been in excess of 300hp, as his 222hp motor has now been fitted with a
>K&N and a 75hp nitrous kit

Wow, I think this should definitely be noticeable but have you also increased fuel pressure and flow to provide the right
amount of fuel ? Or is it a wet system that combines fuel and nos ?

I once drove a Firebird T/A with a 100hp shot and the thing almost scared the hell out of me. I have a modified Z28 too
and there was a huge/enormous difference when the throttle hit WOT. I was definitely addicted to this power :)))

>legitimate dyno run produced 8-13 more hp, your results from the 'Butt-Dyno'
>might not impress you to the $300 mark. Food for thought. :)

Absolutely right :)

Regards,
Roger
__________________________

Roger Gerl, Switzerland
93'3000GT TwinTurbo
. going the wet way now !

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:43:47 -0500
From: "Basol, John" <jbasol@Carlson.com>
Subject: Team3S: NOS - was: elecric blower

> -----Original Message-----
> From: R.G. [SMTP:robby@freesurf.ch]
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 10:16 AM
> To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
> Subject: RE: Team3S: elecric blower
>
>
> >That gave it a bit more. Now in theory he should
> >have been in excess of 300hp, as his 222hp motor has now been fitted with
> a
> >K&N and a 75hp nitrous kit
>
> Wow, I think this should definitely be noticeable but have you also
> increased fuel pressure and flow to provide the right
> amount of fuel ? Or is it a wet system that combines fuel and nos ?
>
It was a wet system. It did give a give a good power increase, but
felt more like a TT with 5psi of boost, instead of 11

> I once drove a Firebird T/A with a 100hp shot and the thing almost scared
> the hell out of me. I have a modified Z28 too
> and there was a huge/enormous difference when the throttle hit WOT. I was
> definitely addicted to this power :)))
>
Remember you were starting with 300 ponies and ending up with 400.
400 ponies in a light rear drive is gonna be kick upside the head! :)

If it didn't involve so much work to put in a 75 or 100 hp shot, I
think it would be a blast to try this on a TT. :) Maybe someday when my
other project is done I'll start playing with the Stealth some more. :)

-John

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:42:01 -0700
From: "Jim Berry" <fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Differences DSBC vs SSBC

> The difference is indeed the solenoids at first and only one of this tiny things
> cannot handle more than 1.2bars of boost. Then there are only two settings
> storeable, no boost gauge, no peak, no scramble, etc. IMHO, with a price below
> $400 the DSBC is one of the best choice and the SSBC has never been an option on
> the market !
===================================================================
Rodger, this may come as a suprise to you but a lot of us folk don't plan on running
more than 1 BAR ;-) I use the SSBC on my current setup [ stock fuel setup and turbos ]
and find it more than sufficient. The only time I've used the second setting is when I
accidentally hit the switch. I wouldn't use the built in boost gage because of its location,
I have an A pillar aftermarket gage and am able to monitor it while under WOT, not
something I'd do with my head in the cockpit. The peak hold would be nice but I can
monitor mine fairly well in real time [ assuming I'm not going around a 40 MPH corner
at 80 MPH with adrenaline spurting out from under my fingernails ]. INHO the SSBC
is more than sufficent for moderate boost levels on a mildly altered car.
I will be going to a more complex unit when I go to the next level [ probably a $6000
expenditure ] at which point I'll sell my SSBC and use the proceeds to buy a new set of
plugs.

Jim Berry >>> 93 stealth TT ---- "arrest me red"
 K&N FPIK -- Magnicore/.034" --- Blitz SSBC
 [soon] --- GAB struts --- Stillen SS lines
 GC/Eibach 550# F/330# R
 Gtech --- 0-60 = 4.75 -- 1/4 = 13.3 @ 110 mph

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 18:02:47 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Differences DSBC vs SSBC

>Why would maximum boost pressure be a function of the solonoid? All the
>solonoid has to do is vent the hose to shoot pressure through the roof!
>I would think the solonoid would impact responsiveness and perhaps
>overboost management.

The solenoid(s) are always pulsed, open (off mode) or closed (low boost, idle). When it is closed the pressure in the hose
to the actuator is vented to the ambient. When it is open the pressure from the IN port goes to the actuators. The EBC
controls the acuators with pulsing the solenoids.

Therefore one big solenoid is slower than two smaller ones that can hold and control the same pressure. Even more one
smaller solenoid can act quickly but cannot release or build up pressure on the output.

Cheers,
Roger
__________________________

Roger Gerl, Switzerland
93'3000GT TwinTurbo
. going the wet way now !

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:06:11 -0600
From: "waflestomp" <waflestomp@home.com>
Subject: Team3S: Trying to hook up a Shift light

after much searching through my Service Manual...I have come to a
conclusion. I have no idea where to hook up the shift light to "the
electronic ignition tach terminal" I just can't find it in the book. any I
have a 92 3K VR-4 any info, or page # would be appreciated.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:09:23 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: elecric blower

> We therefore "can expect" 7% more fuel due to the more air and 2%
> more energy due to the increased fuel pressure. But this cannot
> be counted together as the 2% figure only tells us what the
> fuel system is capable of and for sure the NA system is not
> at its end with 1 psi of boost :)

To the best of my knowlege, the NA motors don't use a rising-rate fuel
pressure regulator since the engine is never expected to see boost and
require more fuel pressure.

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 18:18:09 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Injectors, fuel, pump calculations

>It would appear that this formula is pretty reliant on an accurate BSFC
>value. Where do we get this value for our cars? And is the value the same
>at all levels of boost, and all values of temp?

The BSFC is mentioned in all books and sites that are speaking about this stuff. It is a basic constant that remains in the
engines design and can be calculated by using the internals of the engine. Don't ask me what it is needed as I haven't
found this information in any book nor on any site :( But the most sources are speaking of 0.5-0.6 for turbos and only Mitsu
does know this as the engine should be strapped on an engine-dyno with constant load over a specific time. It is always
constant for an engine and does not depend on the ambient. Once I was also told that the oil may have an influence to this
value as the wear is different as well as the mechanical resistance.

Therefore for a turbo engine (high oil temps) a value of 0.55 can be taken in general for a normal or good engine.

> We all now that on a nice cool evening the car makes more power, but is it consuming more fuel? I
>doubt it. Just some thoughts.

Sure, the air is denser then :) An Yes, it consumes more fuel then, but it needs less throttle to move the car and therefore
will help to increase mileage. But this has nothing to do with the BSFC.

Later,
Roger
__________________________

Roger Gerl, Switzerland
93'3000GT TwinTurbo
. going the wet way now !

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 18:21:56 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Trying to hook up a Shift light

>I have no idea where to hook up the shift light to "the
>electronic ignition tach terminal" I just can't find it in the book. any I
>have a 92 3K VR-4 any info, or page # would be appreciated.

Just look at my AFC installation page :
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/9589/safc_inst.html

There is a scan of the ECU connector (M3) and the RPM signal needed is pointed out too.

Good luck,
Roger
__________________________

Roger Gerl, Switzerland
93'3000GT TwinTurbo
. going the wet way now !

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:20:51 -0500
From: "Basol, John" <jbasol@Carlson.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Injectors, fuel, pump calculations

> > We all now that on a nice cool evening the car makes more power, but is
> it consuming more fuel? I
> >doubt it. Just some thoughts.
>
> Sure, the air is denser then :) An Yes, it consumes more fuel then, but it
> needs less throttle to move the car and therefore
> will help to increase mileage.
>
I guess maybe I am confusing, consumed fuel with injected fuel. Do
you mean that more fuel is burned, even though the amount injected stays the
same?

> But this has nothing to do with the BSFC.
>
Hmmm. Seems to me it would be directly related.
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 18:24:10 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: RE: Team3S: elecric blower

>> But this cannot be counted together as the 2% figure only tells us what the
>> fuel system is capable of and for sure the NA system is not
>> at its end with 1 psi of boost :)

>To the best of my knowlege, the NA motors don't use a rising-rate fuel
>pressure regulator since the engine is never expected to see boost and
>require more fuel pressure.

You are absolutely right and this why it is not counted in here. Although the fuel pressure is already around 44 or 47psi and
a rising of one psi is within the variables :)

Cheers,
Roger
__________________________

Roger Gerl, Switzerland
93'3000GT TwinTurbo
. going the wet way now !

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:02:40 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Differences DSBC vs SSBC

>Rodger, this may come as a suprise to you but a lot of us folk don't plan
on running
>more than 1 BAR ;-)

What ? Really ?? :)))

I fully agree with you on the cost/hp value and it works well. But you know,
also a bleeder valve and a manual boost controller works :)

Regards,
Roger (loves high tech)
93'3000GT TT

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

------------------------------

End of Team3S Digest V1 #215
****************************

For unsubscribe info and FAQ, see our web page at http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm