--
From: owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
(Team3S Digest)
To: stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Team3S Digest V1 #230
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 Tuesday, July 13
1999 Volume 01 : Number
230
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:32:02 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: turbo comparisons
Roger,
Do you imply that there are
different turbo's on 3S cars depending on
mitsu/chrysler badge or US/Europe
market? I was under the impression that
all 3S had identical turbos
regardless. if this not the case, can you make a
chart listing
variations??
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:37:06 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: WI - Pump
What about corrosion? which brand/model fuel pump do
you exacly use?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:58:48 -0700
From: David Chen <Neubine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: J.D. Power vs. Mitsu Survey (Getrag Tranny Probs)
In Japan,
Japanese Police Officers use a GTO. But like many cops here
thier cars are
modified. The factory modifies the ECU to perform better.
I believe this is
better than GForce's because it's modified by
engineers at Mitsubishi and is
not a piggy back system. They remove the
Speed Limiter, Rev limiter is
raised, Boost level is raised and the fuel
and ignistion curve are modified.
I know for a fact that M&S has one in
stock as of right now. They
actually have half of a Police GTO that
somehow got into a wreck =) Probably
chasing a Skyline or something. You
would need the Japanese Harness though as
it might be a little diffrent
than 94+. (91-93) should be the
same.
What my local parts guy tells me is that he can order these parts
for me
because it like american police cars. When they sell them back to
the
public as used cars they need parts too. He used to work at For
Chevy
and Ford and ordered parts for Caprises and Crown Victorias. He
says
that he can order any Japanese or Police factory parts. He just
needs
the part number.
Murat Okcuoglu wrote:
> "Factory
Modified Police Versions ECUs "
>
> This seems very intersting!! can
you get/post more info??
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is
http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:05:05 -0700
From: "Dave Allison" <dallison@siebel.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Intercooler/WIS vs. Injectors/VPC
I would think an intercooler
upgrade would indeed improve
performance on an otherwise stock vehicle (with
bleeder valve or BC).
The purpose of increasing the size of the injectors
is to allow more
fuel to be dumped into the combustion chamber for cooling
purposes, not
because we're running the mixture too lean. The reason adding
more fuel with
larger injectors, upgraded fuel pump, VPC, etc., allows us to
increase the
boost pressure is because the extra fuel has a cooling effect
with decreases
temperature/detonation, allowing an increase in boost to the
point where
eventually cooling becomes a problem again due to the increased
boost.
The recent tests that have been performed with the water
injection
have proven that cooling of the intake charge is more important
than
upgrading the fuel system. Adding more fuel is a crude way to cool
things
down. Extra fuel being used to cool the intake charge is wasted fuel.
Much
better is to cool the charge with intercooler upgrades and water
injection,
IMO.
The fact that the gentlemen testing the water
injection system was
previously able to boost to 19lbs without encountering
detonation,
compliments of a knock detector, reveals to us that boost can be
increased
significantly without bumping our heads on a lean condition. FUEL
IS NOT THE
PROBLEM... COOLING IS.
My thinking is this... Why increase
injector size, replace fuel
pump, purchase fuel computer, and screw around
with your fuel ratio,
potentially CAUSING a lean condition while
experimenting... when you can
just take care of the root of the problem by
cooling the intake charge in a
more direct, elegant way? (water injection,
intercooler upgrade). What kind
of boost increase is possible with an
intercooler upgrade AND a water
injection system?! You can easily spend well
over $3K on on an
injector/pump/VPC package, while an intercooler upgrade is
in the
neighborhood of $2.5K. I'd like to see some HP results from
an
intercooler/water injection system upgrade and see how they compare with
the
traditional fuel system frenzy.
For myself, I would choose the
simpler intercooler/WIS upgrade
before screwing around with my fuel system.
You simply cool and increase the
boost until detonation occurs. No fuel maps.
No lean conditions. No rough
idling issues. No 550cc chips. No GCC. No AF
meters. No MAS upgrades. No RPM
based fuel computers! Why add fuel when it's
not what's needed?
If Roger's tests further validate the previously
published
experiments, I'll be adding a water injection system
soon!
Thanks.
Dave
- -----Original
Message-----
From: R.G. [mailto:robby@freesurf.ch]
Sent: Sunday,
July 11, 1999 4:07 AM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Team3S: Re: Intercooler / exhaust upgrade (was : major
questions to
ask)
First, an intercooler does not make ponies. It's the gain in
boost what
gives you the hp ! Intercooler upgrade ($1500-$2800) is one of the
more
effective upgrades as a cooler discharged air is denser and lowers
the
detonation point. Unfortunately, this will not help you on an
otherwise
stock TT car. As usual the fuel system must be mentioned and on the
paper
it's not able to deliver the needed fuel for boosts of more than
15psi
( This is the first step to do.
As you want another exhaust
sound, just get rid of the huge muffler and
replace it with a smaller one.
This is the cheapest way to get sound without
loss of performance. A larger
exhaust will give you more benefit only when
other restrictions like the
pre-cats have been removed.
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT
TT
>making my car faster. how much hp increase does a larger
intercooler make?
>and how much might this cost. also what would be a good
exaust to get. i
want
>something that sounds deep and gives good
preformance.
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:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:03:26 -0700
From: David Chen <Neubine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Japanese Rear light
I just got the part number for the
Japanese version Tailights. I
beliveve that diffrence is the blinks and stop
lights are yellow orange.
Koto 220-37598
David Chen
Neubine@Ix.netcom.com
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:17:24 -0500
From: "Basol, John" <jbasol@Carlson.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: WI - Pump
It is a Puralator, I'll have to check on the
model. Not sure about
corrosion, didn't think of that. Says it's
compatable with all types of
fuel, wonder if that includes water?
:-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Murat Okcuoglu [SMTP:murat@ashacorp.com]
Sent:
Monday, July 12, 1999 11:37 AM
To: Basol, John; stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Re: Team3S: WI - Pump
What about corrosion? which brand/model fuel pump
do you exacly use?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:33:09 -0700
From: Chris Winkley <cwinkley@plaza.ds.adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: turbo comparisons
Murat...
I'll jump in here, having
talked to both Roger and TEC extensively.
Mitsubishi claims ALL European,
Japanese, and North American 3KGTs come from
the factory with 9Bs. HOWEVER,
Roger has a 1993 3KGT with 13Gs, straight
from the dealer. Roger has pictures
of his turbos. Since the 13G is a
Mitsubishi product with the same housing as
the 9B only with larger wheels
and improved cooling jackets (whereas 15Gs are
the result of modifications
done by TEC), it seems reasonable that they
would've put them on some
models, even though we wouldn't see the difference
without carefully
checking the part numbers. I don't think we have any data
from Canada, but
it's also possible that they have some 13G versions lurking
about.
Looking forward...Chris
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Murat Okcuoglu [mailto:murat@ashacorp.com]
Sent: Monday,
July 12, 1999 9:32 AM
To: robby@swissonline.ch; team
3si
Subject: Re: Team3S: turbo comparisons
Roger,
Do you
imply that there are different turbo's on 3S cars depending on
mitsu/chrysler
badge or US/Europe market? I was under the impression that
all 3S had
identical turbos regardless. if this not the case, can you make a
chart
listing variations??
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:43:06 -0700
From: Chris Winkley <cwinkley@plaza.ds.adp.com>
Subject:
Team3S: RE: Japanese Police ECU
David...
OK...so what's the Mitsu
part number on the Japanese Police ECU that M&S
has? I'm sure there's a
number of us that would check out pricing and
availability.
BTW, why
would it matter if it's piggyback or not, as long as the new
program is the
same?
Looking forward...Chris
- -----Original
Message-----
From: David Chen [mailto:Neubine@ix.netcom.com]
Sent:
Monday, July 12, 1999 9:59 AM
To: Team3S
Subject: Re: Team3S: J.D. Power
vs. Mitsu Survey (Getrag Tranny Probs)
In Japan, Japanese Police Officers
use a GTO. But like many cops here
thier cars are modified. The factory
modifies the ECU to perform better.
I believe this is better than GForce's
because it's modified by
engineers at Mitsubishi and is not a piggy back
system. They remove the
Speed Limiter, Rev limiter is raised, Boost level is
raised and the fuel
and ignistion curve are modified. I know for a fact that
M&S has one in
stock as of right now. They actually have half of a Police
GTO that
somehow got into a wreck =) Probably chasing a Skyline or something.
You
would need the Japanese Harness though as it might be a little
diffrent
than 94+. (91-93) should be the same.
<snip>
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:54:24 -0500
From: "Basol, John" <jbasol@Carlson.com>
Subject: Team3S:
FLow rate
Roger (or anybody),
Do you know how to calculate the flow
rate of a pump at a certain
pressure, given the flow rate at a different
pressure. Is it something that
would be linear?
- -John
Basol
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:25:31 -0500
From: "Gabriel Estrada" <typhoonzz@earthlink.net>
Subject:
Team3S: Turbo Oil
While changing my oil last night I actually read the
owners manual to see
how much oil the car was suposed to hold. For the
pan and the filter it was
4.2 qts. There was an additional 1.5(approx)
qts for the turbo. When I
filled the car up last night it only took the
4.2 for filter and oilpan,
nothing doing for the turbo. How do you
check and change the turbo oil, or
is this possible. Hope this is not a
stupid question, but when you get a
litle educated, you become dangerous so I
want to make sure that I have
everything done properly.
Thanks,
Gabe
Estrada
94 Pearl Yellow VR-4
92 GMC Typhoon
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:52:20 -0700
From: Chris Winkley <cwinkley@plaza.ds.adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Turbo Oil
Gabe...
There's no such thing as a stupid
question...I just checked my owners manual
(to make sure my memory hadn't
gone south since last Thursday when I changed
my oil). My manual (1995 3KGT)
says 4 quarts for the pan, 1/2 quart for the
filter, 1/2 quart for the oil
cooler. At least 98% of this oil (5 quarts
total) will drain when you pull
the drain plug and filter. There is no other
procedure (known to me) for
removing the last ~2% that hangs up in the nooks
and crannies of the
system.
Looking forward...Chris
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Gabriel Estrada [mailto:typhoonzz@earthlink.net]
Sent:
Tuesday, July 13, 1999 11:26 AM
To: 3K Mailing list
Subject: Team3S: Turbo
Oil
While changing my oil last night I actually read the owners
manual to see
how much oil the car was suposed to hold. For the pan and
the filter it was
4.2 qts. There was an additional 1.5(approx) qts for
the turbo. When I
filled the car up last night it only took the 4.2 for
filter and oilpan,
nothing doing for the turbo. How do you check and
change the turbo oil, or
is this possible. Hope this is not a stupid
question, but when you get a
litle educated, you become dangerous so I want
to make sure that I have
everything done properly.
Thanks,
Gabe
Estrada
94 Pearl Yellow VR-4
92 GMC Typhoon
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:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:59:05 -0700
From: David Chen <Neubine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Police ECU
I don't have the part number, I know I should have but
i guess I'm just
too forgetful. =) You can call AMS though they have it.
Thier number
is1-800-695-4700, I know for a fact that they have one in stock.
They
actually just got the remenants of a Police GTO.
As to Piggy back
programing, I'm not sure if piggy back is the best but
I do know that Factory
Engineers would definalty be better than anything
what G-Forces does because
they have better tools, resources and data to
program the ECU for top
performance.
Dave
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web
page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:08:56 -0700
From: "Dave Allison" <dallison@siebel.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Police ECU
What are the differences/features of the Police GTO
ECU?
Thanks.
Dave
- -----Original Message-----
From:
David Chen [mailto:Neubine@ix.netcom.com]
Sent:
Monday, July 12, 1999 11:59 AM
To: Team3S
Subject: Team3S: Police
ECU
I don't have the part number, I know I should have but i
guess I'm just
too forgetful. =) You can call AMS though they have it. Thier
number
is1-800-695-4700, I know for a fact that they have one in stock.
They
actually just got the remenants of a Police GTO.
As to Piggy back
programing, I'm not sure if piggy back is the best but
I do know that Factory
Engineers would definalty be better than anything
what G-Forces does because
they have better tools, resources and data to
program the ECU for top
performance.
Dave
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:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:51:47 -0500
From: "Gabriel Estrada" <typhoonzz@earthlink.net>
Subject:
Team3S: Spark Plugs
Before I go and buy plugs and wires, 2
Questions
Are the stock plug wire sufficient for every day driving with an
occasional
trip to the track.
What is the best plug to use, do I regap or
leave alone, and what can I
expect to pay for the plugs?
Thanks Again
,
Gabe Estrada
94 Pearl Yellow 3000 GT VR-4
92 GMC
Typhoon
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:18:05 +1200
From: Kevin Clark <Kevin.Clark@hnz.co.nz>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Japanese Rear light
> I just got the part number for the
Japanese version
> Tailights. I beliveve that diffrence is the
blinks
> and stop lights are yellow orange.
>
> Koto
220-37598
Japan along with much of the world actually
distinguish
between indicators (turning lights, blinkers, etc) and
brake
lights. Brake lights are always RED, while the
indicators are typically
an orange colour.
If anyone is interested the following link is to
a
picture of rear end of my 1991 Japanese GTO.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/8443/Images_Gto_gto_rear-l.jpg
Cheers,
Kevin
Clark
'91 GTO-VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:58:49 -0700
From: Ken Middaugh <Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Intercooler/WIS vs.
Injectors/VPC
snip
>
My thinking is this... Why increase injector size, replace fuel
> pump,
purchase fuel computer, and screw around with your fuel ratio,
>
potentially CAUSING a lean condition while experimenting... when you can
>
just take care of the root of the problem by cooling the intake charge in
a
> more direct, elegant way? (water injection, intercooler upgrade). What
kind
> of boost increase is possible with an intercooler upgrade AND a
water
> injection system?! You can easily spend well over $3K on on
an
> injector/pump/VPC package, while an intercooler upgrade is in
the
> neighborhood of $2.5K. I'd like to see some HP results from
an
> intercooler/water injection system upgrade and see how they compare
with the
> traditional fuel system frenzy.
snip
You are assuming
that the sole reason for more fuel is for cooling. You are
forgetting
that rich and lean conditions are a result of improper air-fuel
ratio.
As you increase the amount of air going into the engine (higher boost),
you
must also increase the amount of fuel so as to maintain the proper
air-fuel
ratio. I think folks have reported injector duty cycles over
90% at about 15
psi with stock turbos. Thus psi over 17 will cause the
injectors to be maxed
out and unable to provide enough fuel which will result
in a lean and dangerous
condition.
The reason for fuel system upgrades
is to maintain proper air-fuel ratios above
15psi. The reason for water
injection is to push detonation from 16 psi to a
higher (hopefully much
higher) boost level.
- --
Hang up and drive!
Ken
Middaugh
General Atomics
San Diego
(619) 455-4510
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:22:42 -0700
From: "Dave Allison" <dallison@siebel.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Intercooler/WIS vs. Injectors/VPC
Ken,
Please read the
rest of my post.
I agree that the idea of additional fuel in SOME cars is
to maintain
a stochiometric air/fuel ratio as you increase boost, but this is
not the
case in our cars up to 19psi. The additional fuel, apparently up to
19psi,
is beneficial only as a cooling agent. If this were not the case, the
WIS
poster would have experienced knock due to a lean condition while turning
up
the boost.
You state, "The reason for fuel system upgrades is to
maintain
proper air-fuel ratios above
15psi." I cannot agree with this
statement. If the air/fuel ratio were
incorrect he would have gotten
detonation at 19psi in the WIS test results.
The detonation that occurs is
due to intake charge heat, not air/fuel ratio.
I'm not sure you understand
the relationship between air/fuel ratio and
detonation. A sign of a lean
condition is indeed detonation. He increased
the boost without increasing the
fuel. According to your theory he should
have experienced air/fuel ratio
problems resulting in detonation. He didn't.
I most definitely agree with
your statement about the injector duty
cycle on stock injectors. I myself hit
100% IDC when at WOT and 15psi. But
then, most owners who increase their
boost to 15psi do not upgrade their
injectors simultaneously. IDC readings
are a better reason to suggest
upgraded injectors than air/fuel
ratio.
With the facts before me I feel comfortable saying that the
sole
reason for more fuel IS for cooling... up to 19psi.
I may be
wrong. It could be even higher boost than that!
:)
Seeya!
Dave
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Ken Middaugh [mailto:Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com]
Sent:
Monday, July 12, 1999 1:59 PM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Intercooler/WIS vs.
Injectors/VPC
snip
>
My thinking is this... Why increase injector size, replace fuel
> pump,
purchase fuel computer, and screw around with your fuel ratio,
>
potentially CAUSING a lean condition while experimenting... when you can
>
just take care of the root of the problem by cooling the intake charge
in
a
> more direct, elegant way? (water injection, intercooler
upgrade). What
kind
> of boost increase is possible with an intercooler
upgrade AND a water
> injection system?! You can easily spend well over
$3K on on an
> injector/pump/VPC package, while an intercooler upgrade is
in the
> neighborhood of $2.5K. I'd like to see some HP results from
an
> intercooler/water injection system upgrade and see how they compare
with
the
> traditional fuel system frenzy.
snip
You are
assuming that the sole reason for more fuel is for cooling. You
are
forgetting that rich and lean conditions are a result of improper
air-fuel
ratio. As you increase the amount of air going into the engine
(higher
boost),
you must also increase the amount of fuel so as to
maintain the proper
air-fuel
ratio. I think folks have reported
injector duty cycles over 90% at about
15
psi with stock turbos.
Thus psi over 17 will cause the injectors to be
maxed
out and unable to
provide enough fuel which will result in a lean
and
dangerous
condition.
The reason for fuel system upgrades is to
maintain proper air-fuel ratios
above
15psi. The reason for water
injection is to push detonation from 16 psi to
a
higher (hopefully much
higher) boost level.
- --
Hang up and drive!
Ken
Middaugh
General Atomics
San Diego
(619) 455-4510
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:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:04:15 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: WI - Pump
Too bad, my WI installation is going slow as I had to
do some business trips
lately.
> Wow fuel cut sure is an effective
method of slowing the car down! :-)
Yeah, it's hard to get the
tooths out of the steering wheel ;-))
>was that the water nozzle was
clogged again, but when I tried to manually
>turn the pump on to check the
nozzle, the pump wouldn't even turn on!
Ok, pump died but what water
filter are you using or is delivered with teh
pump ? You may change the thing
as well ? As far as I remember, the nozzle
is installed in the ellbow of the
y-pipe, but where exactly (under-side,
upper side, etc.) ERL told me to watch
the postion of teh yet as it should
not be un the lower half of the pipe due
to oil deposits that may appear
there. Of course I got the information AFTER
I already isntalled the front
jet :((( But it shouldn't be a problem as it is
not in the ellbow and
mounted in about 40° angle.
> Water
consumption has changed a bit now. I went through almost a
>whole tank of
water in about 75 "spirited" miles.
How big is the tank
?
>tried the next size larger water jet and the car did not like it,
so I went
>back.
What were the symptons ?
> My
recommendation, anyone looking to use a Spearco, replace that
>stupid pump
that comes with it with a big fuel pump.
Well, the price for the Spearco
is that low that additional $50 is not a big
deal
:))
Later
Roger
93'3000GT TT
ERL WI still not fully installed
:((
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:17:32 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: turbo comparisons
>Do you imply that there are different
turbo's on 3S cars depending on
>mitsu/chrysler badge or US/Europe
market?
Yes, I checked two other 3000GT in Switzerland and they had the
same 13G
turbos as I have in my 93 version. We also thought the Injectors are
bigger
but they are not. Stealths have never been imprted to Europe as well
as
there are no NA cars around.
>I was under the impression thatall
3S had identical turbos regardless.
>if this not the case, can you make a
chart listing variations??
I can only speak for Europe and the
differences in the manuals I have. I
don't know for any other country and it
seems that we are having the bigger
turbos to keep the discharge temperature
on a moderate level on teh high
speed autobahn in
Germany.
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:31:04 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: FLow rate
> Do you know how to calculate the flow rate of a
pump at a certain
>pressure, given the flow rate at a different
pressure. Is it something
that
>would be linear?
Flow rate
and pressure must be given by the manufacturer. It is
calculatable, although
there are some variables we do not have :( Therefore
it must bee tested if
teh table is not given. It is linear (higher pressure
= less flow) in it's
operating range and the curve falls down very fast at
the top
end.
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:44:44 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Police ECU
Dave, thanks for the information, and of course there
is a big interest in
this :)
Warning : I started to think ..... :
-
- What if the ECU is made for different injectors fuel pump. How do we
know
?
- - What if a Jap cop car has different turbos as well and
therefore the ECU
is made for this ?
- - What if the knock sensor
is different to serve the different "operationg
area"
There are many
other whats and we just do not have to forget the accessoires
around an ECU.
I once installed the G-Force ECU with the mildest program in
my car and had a
huge advance in timing and the y-pipe blew off in no time.
The rpms increased
much faster and ... yep, I runned damn lean as the
program was made for
bigger injectors I do have installed. " Das war nicht
gut !!" And yes, the
engine was already damaged :((
>As to Piggy back programing, I'm not
sure if piggy back is the best but
>I do know that Factory Engineers would
definalty be better than anything
>what G-Forces does because they have
better tools, resources and data to
>program the ECU for top
performance.
I agree as long you have a car WITH ONLY THE MODS the cop
car has ! If you
choose to run bigger injectors a new program can be
adapted for them. If
you change to bigger turbos a program can be adapted for
them. You want to
gain more with runnign a little leaner with advanced timing
but still with
the safety retards at high boost, the program can be adapted
for this
purpose. As Chris already stated, if the program in the cop ECU is
also
loaded into the G-Force the ECU is the same ! But I'd be able to go
further
and again change this program :)
Therefore, cop ECU may
be good, but custom tuning and MORE power is
better.
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
PS: A japanes guy made a
police car out of my 3000GT I made for "Need For
Speed" :)))
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:33:55 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Boost Levels and Fuel Mods
Thanks Chris :)
>9B = 265
cfm
>13G = 360 cfm
>15G = 460 cfm
Did they also said on what
boost the compressor wheels are able to flow at
this amount of air (i.e.
efficiency) ? I wish to get the "pressure/discharge
temp." graph for the
turbos as well :))
I like to refresh the brains again. In an earlier post
I described how to
calculate the air flow on our cars (yadda,
yadda)
Stock Wategates open :
(182in^3 * 7000rpm * 0.5 *0.9 * 1 (0
bars of boost)) / 1728 = 332 cfm
Stock 0.5 bars:
(182in^3 * 7000rpm *
0.5 *0.9 * 1.5 (0.5 bars of boost)) / 1728 = 498 cfm ->
249 cfm per
turbo
Modified 1.05 bars :
(182in^3 * 7000rpm * 0.5 *0.9 * 2.05 (1.05
bars of boost)) / 1728 = 680
cfm ->
340 cfm per turbo
AHA ! Now
somebody once asked me if the stock turbos can hold boost up to
the redline
at 15psi ? Hmm, 340cfm per turbo is needed but the 9B only is
only able to
flow 265cfm. Furthermore we do not know if this figure is right
as the
efficiency is degraded then.
What max boost will we get at 5k, 6k and 7k
rpm with the 9B ? (hacking on
the calc)
5k : 1.3 bars (18 psi)
6k : 0.9
bars (12.5 psi)
7k : 0.6 bars (8.7 psi)
Question answered ... no
!
Of course, these are theoretical calculations but they are damn close
to the
reality. The difference to the plus side is that boost is pumped up
and this
calculated values are possible sustained boost. It is possible that
you can
see 10 or more psi at the redline but only pumped and over the time
it will
come back to a lower value.
>Now, clearly (IMO), the more
air you flow, the higher the boost you can
>produce and the longer you can
sustain it. HOWEVER, that is dependent on a
>number of other factors,
primarily the fuel system.
You are right ! We always have to fight with
another value ... detonation.
The calculations are based on a healthy engine
without very hard
calculatable detonation problems (I'm working on
it)
>My question...Roger...why do you say a person would lose 70 hp by
adding
>larger injectors and fuel pump?
I've maybe been hit by my
internal language translator :) If you increase
the fuel system and add boost
a lot fuel will be consumed just for cooling
purposes. This is wasted
(unburnt) fuel = wasted energy = wasted power.
Depending on the boost you can
read the IDC with the bigger injectors and
calculate the power (energy) in
the fuel. But you'll get much less on the
dyno due to the wasted stuff. And
this is because the efficiency is getting
degraded and the fuel wasted may be
worth 70hp !!
So I didn't want to say that you loose power but you waste
fuel worth 70hp
at 1.3 bars :) You'll regain it with better intercooling or
WI ;-)
Later,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:51:12 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Intercooler/WIS vs. Injectors/VPC
> I would think an
intercooler upgrade would indeed improve
>performance on an otherwise
stock vehicle (with bleeder valve or BC).
>The purpose of increasing
the size of the injectors is to allow more
<snip>
You are very
right with the statements and you're right our enemy is
detonation and
cooling the stuff with fuel is not the best idea !
>The recent tests
that have been performed with the water injection
>have proven that
cooling of the intake charge is more important than
>upgrading the fuel
system. Adding more fuel is a crude way to cool things
>down. Extra fuel
being used to cool the intake charge is wasted fuel. Much
>better is to
cool the charge with intercooler upgrades and water
injection,
>IMO.
Again, a big yes but here you are forgetting
something : More boost means
more air, and more air means ... more fuel
!!
>FUEL IS NOT THE PROBLEM... COOLING IS.
Yes, but :
- - Do
you want more power = get rid of the detonation and crank up da boost
- - Do
you want more power = more fuel is needed as boost has been increased
On
1.05 bars, Jims AVC-R showed an IDC of more than 90% and about 405 SAE hp
on
the dyno. This proves my calculations on the Excel worksheet and there
you
can see that the fuel system is just not able to deliver more fuel.
Again, my
values are theoretically calculated and some pumps may flow more
or less as
blueprinted as well as injectors do. But I was surprised with the
data are
that close to the real world :)
>of boost increase is possible with an
intercooler upgrade AND a water
>injection system?!
This highly
depends on the higher efficiency of the IC parts. With this you
can calculate
the new boost where yo uare getting the same combustion
chamber temperatures
as before. Please also note that any turbo at its end
sometimes (boost wise).
Therefore an increase from 14 to 15 psi of boost may
only increase the
discharge temperature by, let's say, 5°F while an increase
from 15-16psi can
cause. say 20°F increase. This because the compressor
wheel runs out of its
area and the efficiency is highly degraded then.
Therefore upgrading to a
bigger turbo makes much sense too !
>I'd like to see some HP results
from anintercooler/water injection system
upgrade and
>see how they
compare with the traditional fuel system frenzy.
Hmm, ok, I'll spend the
$100 for the additional dyno session and stay with
the stock fuel parts on
the first one. This way we'll get a base and with
the TMO datalogger together
with my own data logging I should able to
present a nice graph then. Damn, I
need three laptops in my car ;-)))
> For myself, I would choose the
simpler intercooler/WIS upgrade
>before screwing around with my fuel
system. You simply cool and increase
the
>boost until detonation
occurs.
You already read the stuff before and therefore you know that
there is just
no more fuel for more power !
> No fuel maps. No lean
conditions. No rough
>idling issues. No 550cc chips. No GCC. No AF meters.
No MAS upgrades. No
RPM
>based fuel computers! Why add fuel when it's
not what's needed?
You forgot something : no more power (no fuel to
burn)
>> If Roger's tests further validate the previously
published
>experiments, I'll be adding a water injection system
soon!
Yo'd not be the only one,
hehe.
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:53:02 -0500
From: xwing <xwing@execpc.com>
Subject: Team3S: Re:
Fuelpump Flow rate
"Basol, John" wrote:
> Do you know how to
calculate the flow rate of pump at certain
> pressure, given flow rate at
different pressure. Is it linear?
It is not linear. The flow
rate falls in a curve, more and more
pressure leading to quicker and quicker
drop in flowrate. More
a parabolic or logarithmic
function. It cannot be exactly
calculated because the motor/pump design
and dynamics are
different from pump to pump, though I suspect one
could
estimate it with three flow datapoints at significantly
different
pressures.
Currently, I would (and have) gotten the Toyota
Supra Mk IV
fuelpump, which is a Denso pump (identical outwardly to
ours)
but flows way more based on actual tests done by a DSM
list
member. Through the whole DSM fuel system including all
fuel
lines, filter, and regulator it flowed 240 liters/hour
at 65 psi! The
HKS is rated at 290 l/h but that is NOT through
any fuel lines/filter, and is
probably even at only 45 psi. Lowell
Foo, who did tests, said it flows
to 110psi +, and our stock TT
pumps stop flow at 90psi. He suspects the
HKS pump for our
cars (which is the Mazda Cosmo pump in Japan) may well
BE
the same as Supra pump. At any rate, the Supra pump
only costs $183
through Toyotaparts.com on internet, can
find phone #...
Jack
Tertadian
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:59:21 EDT
From: "Rice-Burner Crusher" <stealth_es@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Mods Q's (was Selling Price)
Okay.. hearing what you guys
have said, I think I'll keep the car. A
couple of questions,
though..
1.) Is it possible to change my Auto tranny to a manual?
If so, who sells
kits and how do I go about it?
2.) I want to get
some rims for my car.. I think I like the Enkei Wun-Gun
model.
Any ideas? If I do this, I've thought about the Nitto NT555 for
tires.
3.) I want to lower my car. I don't like that *gap*
that's there. Do I buy
lowering springs or whole new shocks? Where do
I look?
4.) I want to make my car faster. (Stock Non-turbo V6 DOHC)
Can I buy
turbo's to add on? Where do I go? What should I get?
What else can I do to
make my car faster.. ie.. air filter, chip,
etc..?
5.) Also, who makes good body kits? I've thought about it,
but haven't seen
any..
Any and all help would be
appreciated..
Thanks.
_______________________________________________________________
Get
Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:56:47 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@swissonline.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Part wanted - HKS BOV
Arty,
Just check out the current
installation (not yet finished) on my car. If you
haven't seen it already,
check it out on my homepage.
> You're right. I'm going to use the Race
type waste gates. With the Aquamist
> too.
What ERL System do you
go with ?
> We had Aquamist on the phone for hours. They have no idea
how to set it up on
> my car :) We wanted to know when to have it come on
line...We'll just have to
> figure it out ourselves. My tuner is pretty
good, we'll see just how good?
It should come on at about 12 psi, but of
course this depends on the current
state of the car. I'd say to check out the
detonation boost limit and then
inject the water 2 or 3 psi before of
this.
Cheers,
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/testpipe,Borla
Cat-back,OZ Mito2 rims,Yoko AVS-Z1,braided brake lines
Bremsa brakes,u-Mevius
Street Race 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:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:56:25 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Spark Plugs
The stock NGKs and wires are good enough for mucho
power :)
Just regap them to 0.034" and you'll be fine for higher
boost.
Cost is about $9 - $12 per plug ($21 here in Europe,
haha)
Roger
93'3000GT TT
>Before I go and buy plugs and
wires, 2 Questions
>Are the stock plug wire sufficient for every day
driving with an occasional
>trip to the track.
>What is the best
plug to use, do I regap or leave alone, and what can I
>expect to pay for
the plugs?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:56:52 -0700
From: Ken Middaugh <Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Intercooler/WIS vs. Injectors/VPC
Dave Allison wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
>
Please read the rest of my post.
>
> I agree that the idea
of additional fuel in SOME cars is to maintain
> a stochiometric air/fuel
ratio as you increase boost, but this is not the
> case in our cars up to
19psi.
In the ideal situation, the ONLY goal of a fuel system is to
maintain proper
air/fuel ratio (which I think may be a little richer than
stochiometric).
> The additional fuel, apparently up to 19psi,
>
is beneficial only as a cooling agent.
Using fuel as a cooling agent is
not an optimum practice, it is a band-aid. In
our cars, I doubt that
there would be a rich condition at high RPM at 19 psi
using the stock fuel
system. A properly sized system has to account for the
worst
case. 7000RPM at 19psi will require fuel system upgrades to ensure
proper
air/fuel ratio.
> If this were not the case, the WIS
>
poster would have experienced knock due to a lean condition while turning
up
> the boost.
>
> You state, "The reason
for fuel system upgrades is to maintain
> proper air-fuel ratios
above
> 15psi." I cannot agree with this statement. If the air/fuel ratio
were
> incorrect he would have gotten detonation at 19psi in the WIS test
results.
> The detonation that occurs is due to intake charge heat, not
air/fuel ratio.
Yes, detonation is pre-ignition due to excessive
temperature. Lean conditions
cause high temperatures, so I can see your
linking detonation with lean
conditions. However with sufficient
cooling, I speculate that you can have a
lean condition without
detonation. Therefore I think it is an incorrect
decuction that the WIS
poster didn't see detonation because the stock fuel
system was providing
sufficient fuel at 19psi. He may very well have been in a
lean
situation.
> I'm not sure you understand the relationship between
air/fuel ratio and
> detonation.
Undoubtedly true since my last
brush with chemistry & physics was almost 20
years ago. However I
respectfully request that you change that to "completely
understand"
:).
> A sign of a lean condition is indeed detonation. He
increased
> the boost without increasing the fuel. According to your
theory he should
> have experienced air/fuel ratio problems resulting in
detonation. He didn't.
See above speculation.
>
> I most definitely agree
with your statement about the injector duty
> cycle on stock injectors. I
myself hit 100% IDC when at WOT and 15psi. But
> then, most owners who
increase their boost to 15psi do not upgrade their
> injectors
simultaneously. IDC readings are a better reason to suggest
> upgraded
injectors than air/fuel ratio.
>
> With the facts before
me I feel comfortable saying that the sole
> reason for more fuel IS for
cooling... up to 19psi.
>
> I may be wrong. It
could be even higher boost than that! :)
Do you mean 19psi with 9B
turbos, or 19psi at 7000RPM?
If detonation is taken care of with cooling
by water injection, would you feel
comfortable running 19psi at redline on
the stock fuel system? I believe that
you would have a lean condition
and therefore not be making optimum power.
Therefore my reason for upgrading
the fuel system for 19psi is to achieve
maximum power, thus cooling is not
the sole purpose of fuel upgrades.
>
> Seeya!
>
>
Dave
Thanks for a thought inspiring reply,
Ken
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Middaugh [mailto:Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com]
>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 1:59 PM
> To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Intercooler/WIS vs. Injectors/VPC
>
>
snip
> > My thinking is
this... Why increase injector size, replace fuel
> > pump, purchase
fuel computer, and screw around with your fuel ratio,
> > potentially
CAUSING a lean condition while experimenting... when you can
> > just
take care of the root of the problem by cooling the intake charge in
>
a
> > more direct, elegant way? (water injection, intercooler upgrade).
What
> kind
> > of boost increase is possible with an intercooler
upgrade AND a water
> > injection system?! You can easily spend well
over $3K on on an
> > injector/pump/VPC package, while an intercooler
upgrade is in the
> > neighborhood of $2.5K. I'd like to see some HP
results from an
> > intercooler/water injection system upgrade and see
how they compare with
> the
> > traditional fuel system
frenzy.
> snip
>
> You are assuming that the sole reason for
more fuel is for cooling. You are
> forgetting that rich and lean
conditions are a result of improper air-fuel
> ratio. As you
increase the amount of air going into the engine (higher
> boost),
>
you must also increase the amount of fuel so as to maintain the proper
>
air-fuel
> ratio. I think folks have reported injector duty cycles
over 90% at about
> 15
> psi with stock turbos. Thus psi over
17 will cause the injectors to be
> maxed
> out and unable to
provide enough fuel which will result in a lean and
> dangerous
>
condition.
>
> The reason for fuel system upgrades is to maintain
proper air-fuel ratios
> above
> 15psi. The reason for water
injection is to push detonation from 16 psi to
> a
> higher
(hopefully much higher) boost level.
>
- --
Hang up and
drive!
Ken Middaugh
General Atomics
San Diego
(619)
455-4510
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:01:58 -0500
From: Merritt <merritt@cedar-rapids.net>
Subject:
Team3S: Adventures in braking
Went to the Trans-Am race at RoadAmerica
last weekend, and got to check out
their brakes, up close and
personal.
Their cooling ducts are HUGE! Maybe 8-10 in. ducts that
plug into a molded
piece built into the braking system. The calipers are
mounted in the rear,
leaving the entire front area of the rotor open for
connecting the air ducts.
They use water injection, too, but instead of
injecting it into the ducts,
they shoot it directly into the cooling vanes on
the edge of the rotor. Not
onto the pads or rotor surface as we originally
thought, but into the vanes
themselves. The Miller Racing Camaro carries
three gallons of water, and
injects water only when the brakes are applied.
The driver can turn off the
system during yellow flag laps.
I asked
if water injection warps the rotors. The engineer said they didn't
know,
because they are lucky if the rotors last an entire race
weekend.
Rich/old poop/94 VR4/Somebody stop me!
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:27:11 -0400
From: Steve Sullivan <Sully@Carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Team3S: New Struts
Hey Ya'll
Well it's time to replace my struts
and my motto is "If you have to
replace it .... might as well upgrade it!
". Any one replace stock
struts on a VR-4 with the GABs, KYBs or any
others?? If so who do you
like them.. or dislike then. Who
carries the GABs or others ??
Thanks in advance.
Sully
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:31:30 -0400
From: Steve Sullivan <Sully@Carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Team3S: New Struts
Hey Ya'll
Well it's time to replace my struts
and my motto is "If you have to
replace it .... might as well upgrade it!
". Any one replace stock
struts on a VR-4 with the GABs, KYBs or any
others?? If so, what do you
like about them.. or dislike
about them. Who carries the GABs or
others ??
Thanks in
advance.
Sully
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 06:35:33 -0500
From: xwing <xwing@execpc.com>
Subject: Team3S: Re:
Intercooler/WIS vs. Injectors/VPC
Dave:
Here are some
disagreements with your points, or how
I took them from what you wrote:
(probably not as much
disagreement as agreement overall though)
That
water injection caused one person to report he had no
knock does NOT mean
stock injectors and pump are fine to
19 + psi.
You make some other IMO
not right-on statements, including the suggestion that
our target is a
stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. That is specifically
NOT our
target! That would guarantee melted pistons and
quick engine
destruction.
Another: that 'if air-fuel ratio were incorrect, the
gentleman
WOULD have gotten knock.' This is not necessarily so.
Our
target a-f ratio is in the 11-12:1 range (some go as
low as 10.5 on turbos,
PARTly for cooling/safety). If the
ratio is 13.5, that is an INCORRECT
ratio for our turbo cars
at high boost, yet it is much richer than
stoichiometric (14.7:1).
13.5:1 is richer than stoich and may well NOT knock,
yet is
too lean FOR US. Lean TENDS toward knock and preignition (both),
but
the blanket statement you made is not adequately supported by
the
information available. It ignores several confounding
variables.
Another is that 'the detonation is due to the heat, not a lean
condition.'
The detonation of a stock injector/pump engine at 18+ psi is
due
to both heat, RELATIVE leanout, fuel quality, and what the ECU is
doing
with ignition timing (the latter can get really weird, and is a main
cause for
many wondering WHY the car feels fast one day, and doggy the
next).
Another is that 'injector duty cycle of 100% is a better reason
than
a-f ratio problems to upgrade to larger injectors'.
The BEST reason
to upgrade injectors is an a-f ratio problem! If you
have a lean
condition due to inadequate injector size, you MUST
upgrade or you will
eventually destroy parts! If your duty cycle strays above
80% it is
NICE to upgrade them to save them lifespan, but if they
are at 100% and a-f
is ok, it is just a matter of being nicer to your
injectors, NOT the life of
the engine as a whole.
Our stock (only 360cc!) injectors
are inadequate for our cars at
high boost levels. RC Engineering
cites one of the common
formulas for injector sizing
(hp x BSFC) /
(no.of Inj. x .80 duty cycle) = lbs/hr per Inj. x 10.50 = cc per
injector
needed.
500hp x 0.50 / (6 x .8) = 52.1 lbs/hr x 10.5
= 547 cc injectors needed for 500hp at
80% dutycycle,
or 625hp at 100% dutycycle.
360cc stock inj are worth 65.4% of that, or
327hp @ 80%, and 409hp @ 100%. (Mitsu
engineers are so
smart!) Let's say our BSFC is a bit better,
maybe .46 -- then,
stockers give 444hp @ 100% dutycycle, pushing everything to the limit
in OUR
favor, not necessarily the wisest way to proceed...RC indeed says turbo
engines
will want to be at .60 or higher (!)
CAN you push
the stock injectors and pump to higher 18+ psi and live? YES! BUT,
for
how LONG? The injectors are maxxed out dutycycle-wise. The
fuelpump is marginal (and
you NEED that rock-solid flow-at-pressure!).
For dragrace duty of 13 seconds or less,
right after which the engine gets to
rest/cool pistons, it CAN last a long time. BUT,
for longterm service,
roadrace etc, the stock injectors are marginal to 18psi and I
don't recommend
it much!
My '94 went 2.3 mph faster going from stock 360cc
injectors to 720cc injectors with
VPC/GCC to control it. The VPC takes
away any fuelcut, and allows richening mix further
than stockers will
go. Does this mean the mix was too LEAN before? NO!
That
conclusion would not be adequately supported, as I don't have O2 sensor
voltages,
dutycycles, EGT's, AND ignition advance information. However,
it is clear that going to
larger injectors did not much hurt me. If so,
I can stand to be hurt THAT way many more
times please!
;)
Note, there are many confounding variables here. I
can and have run 20+ psi with
stock injectors for short (dragrace) purposes,
but with STOCK turbos which can't support
that 20psi except between 3000-4000
rpm...after that, they start falling off, so end up
around 9-10psi by
7000. The injectors have more time to inject per firing event at
lower
rpm, and hp is lower down there (less fuel needed) so stockers can indeed work
to
20psi with stock 9B turbos...but I am much more comfortable with 550
injectors and a
fuelpump. I think the engine is
too.
It sounds like the water injection idea is a good one,
I am awaiting more specific
data from an additional observer (Roger and the
actual dyno results--one without WI,
then directly after one WITH WI).
One of the Minnesota members (Curt J. I think it is
spelled with C) is in
midst of testing as well. This hopefully will allow us to
decrease
knock events and resultant spark retard. It improves one of the
factors
needing improvement!
I put upgraded intercoolers on my '93 and
the car LOST 1 mph. Different days, but it
was a
consistent loss, I
never saw such high mph with same setup again. I made all my
fastest
runs with stock IC's. I think a well designed, more efficient IC
system
CAN help our cars, but the Alamo IC's I had (and the HKS upgrade based
on
others' observations) did NOT help quartermile mph, which is most directly
related
to hp. At this time, the commercially available IC
upgrades are a big waste of
money in my experience, and readings of some who
have done and TESTED it.
VPC/injectorsREMOVE fuelcut (to allow boost over
16psi), make for
a safer engine, andmake HP. For those with money to
spend one way or the
other, IC's are not the way IMO. Maybe a different
design than currently out
would be better than the non-helpful aftermarket
ones out now.
This is a good discussion! Whoa did I talk to
long [yes]
Jack Tertadian
Dave Allison wrote, then Ken
Middaugh later down, snipped some!:
> Ken,
> I
agree that additional fuel in SOME cars is to maintain
> stochiometric
air/fuel ratio as increase boost, but this is not
> case in our cars up to
19psi. The additional fuel up to 19psi,
> is beneficial only as a cooling
agent. If this were not the case, the WIS
> poster would have experienced
knock due to a lean condition while turning up
> the
boost.
> You state, "The
reason for fuel system upgrades is to maintain
> proper air-fuel ratios
above 15psi." I cannot agree. If the air/fuel ratio were
> incorrect he
would have gotten detonation at 19psi.
> The detonation is due to intake
charge heat, not air/fuel ratio.
> I'm not sure you understand the
relationship between air/fuel ratio and
> detonation. A sign of lean is
detonation. He increased
> boost without increasing fuel. According to
your theory he should
> have experienced air/fuel ratio problems resulting
in detonation. He
didn't.
> I agree with
your statement about injector duty
> cycle on stock injectors. I hit 100%
IDC at WOT 15psi.
> But most owners who boost 15psi do not upgrade
>
injectors simultaneously. IDC readings are a better reason to suggest
>
upgraded injectors than air/fuel
ratio.
> With facts before
me I feel comfortable saying that the sole
> reason for more fuel IS for
cooling... up to 19psi.
> I may be wrong. It could be
even higher boost than that! :)
> Dave
>
> From: Ken Middaugh
[mailto:Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com]
>
> Why increase injector size, replace fuel
> > pump, purchase
fuel computer, screw with fuel ratio,
> > potentially CAUSING lean
while experimenting... when can
> > take care of root of problem by
cooling intake charge in
> > direct way water injection,
intercooler upgrade.
> > boost increase is possible with IC upgrade AND
water
> > injection system? You spend $3K on on
> >
injector/pump/VPC package, while intercooler upgrade is
> > $2.5K. I'd
like to see some HP results from an
> > intercooler/water injection
system upgrade and see how they compare with the
> > traditional fuel
system frenzy.
> snip
> You assume sole reason for more fuel is
cooling. You
> forget that rich/lean conditions are result of
improper air-fuel
> ratio. As increase air going into the engine
(higher boost),
> must also increase amount fuel to maintain proper
air-fuel
> ratio. folks have reported duty cycles over 90% at
15
> psi/stock turbos. Thus psi over 17 will cause the injectors to
be maxed
> out/unable to provide enough fuel, will result in lean
dangerous condition.
> The reason for fuel system upgrade is to maintain
proper air-fuel ratio above
> 15psi. The reason for water injection
is to push detonation from 16 psi to
> higher boost level.
> Ken
Middaugh
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:44:59 -0700
From: "Dave Allison" <dallison@siebel.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Intercooler/WIS vs. Injectors/VPC
> Dave Allison
wrote:
> >
> > Ken,
> >
>
> Please read the rest of my
post.
> >
> >
I agree that the idea of additional fuel in SOME
> cars is to
maintain
> > a stochiometric air/fuel ratio as you increase boost, but
> this is not the
> > case in our cars up to 19psi.
>
> In the ideal situation, the ONLY goal of a fuel system is to
>
maintain proper
> air/fuel ratio (which I think may be a little richer
than
> stochiometric).
I agree, under an ideal situation. But
we're dealing with a less than ideal
situation.
> > The
additional fuel, apparently up to 19psi,
> > is beneficial only as a
cooling agent.
>
> Using fuel as a cooling agent is not an optimum
practice, it
> is a band-aid. In
> our cars, I doubt that
there would be a rich condition at
> high RPM at 19 psi
> using the
stock fuel system. A properly sized system has to
> account for
the
> worst case. 7000RPM at 19psi will require fuel system
>
upgrades to ensure proper
> air/fuel ratio.
I still don't agree.
The fact that he encountered no detonation is an
indicator that he was not
running into a lean situation. 'Lean' by my
definition means an air/fuel
mixture with so much oxygen in the mixture that
detonation occurs. If you're
saying that he was running a lean situation in
regards to less than
stochiometric, then I would say, 'perhaps'. But, why is
that a bad thing? A
lean situation always causes more power than a rich
situation... although
sometimes at the expense of pistons and rings. If
you're getting a 'lean'
mixture and not getting any detonation,
CONGRATULATIONS, you've found the
magic balance. This is why tuners increase
boost until they get detonation
and then only slightly back off. This
results in the greatest power increase.
Take a look at Roger Gerl's dyno
sheets. horsepower is always highest right
before ignition retard (knock
condition). This is no
coincidence.
> > If this were not the case, the WIS
>
> poster would have experienced knock due to a lean condition
> while
turning up
> > the boost.
> >
>
> You state, "The reason for
fuel system upgrades is
> to maintain
> > proper air-fuel ratios
above
> > 15psi." I cannot agree with this statement. If the air/fuel
> ratio were
> > incorrect he would have gotten detonation at
19psi in the
> WIS test results.
> > The detonation that occurs
is due to intake charge heat,
> not air/fuel ratio.
>
> Yes,
detonation is pre-ignition due to excessive temperature.
> Lean
conditions
> cause high temperatures, so I can see your linking detonation
> with lean
> conditions. However with sufficient cooling, I
speculate
> that you can have a
> lean condition without
detonation. Therefore I think it is
> an incorrect
>
decuction that the WIS poster didn't see detonation because
> the stock
fuel
> system was providing sufficient fuel at 19psi. He may very
> well have been in a
> lean situation.
We seem to be having
a problem with the words of 'lean' and 'detonation'. By
your definition (less
than stochiometric = lean) I can agree with your
statement that "you can have
a lean condition without detonation." If your
definition of lean = loss
of horsepower, or lean = detonation, then I must
disagree with you statement.
The WIS poster DID NOT see detonation because
the stock fuel system was
providing sufficient fuel at 19psi.
Let me restate this.
The WIS
poster DID NOT see detonation because the stock fuel system was
providing
sufficient fuel at 19psi.
If he's not detonating, he's ok. If he didn't
have enough fuel, he'd be
detonating. It's quite simple.
> >
I'm not sure you understand the relationship between
> air/fuel ratio
and
> > detonation.
>
> Undoubtedly true since my last
brush with chemistry & physics
> was almost 20
> years
ago. However I respectfully request that you change
> that to
"completely
> understand" :).
Forgive me the phrasing of the above
statement. It does not read well or
polite for that matter. My
apologies.
> > A sign of a lean condition is indeed
detonation. He increased
> > the boost without increasing the fuel.
According to your
> theory he should
> > have experienced
air/fuel ratio problems resulting in
> detonation. He didn't.
>
> See above speculation.
If one has a 'lean' condition, as you put
it, how would one know? You state
that detonation is not an indicator. Also
then please tell me why a 'lean'
condition, as you put it, is bad. I may be
missing your point.
>
> >
>
> I most definitely agree
with your statement about
> the injector duty
> > cycle on stock
injectors. I myself hit 100% IDC when at WOT
> and 15psi. But
>
> then, most owners who increase their boost to 15psi do not
> upgrade
their
> > injectors simultaneously. IDC readings are a better reason
> to suggest
> > upgraded injectors than air/fuel ratio.
>
>
> > With the
facts before me I feel comfortable saying
> that the sole
> >
reason for more fuel IS for cooling... up to 19psi.
> >
>
> I may be wrong. It could be
even higher boost than that! :)
>
> Do you mean 19psi with 9B
turbos, or 19psi at 7000RPM?
19psi with 9b turbos. Air/fuel ratio may
indeed be a problem with larger
turbos, since they hold boost, i.e. higher
oxygen content, at higher RPM's.
But we're talking about with stock turbos.
It may be a fortunate peculiarity
that the 9B's run out of breath as the RPM
increases.
>
> If detonation is taken care of with cooling by
water
> injection, would you feel
> comfortable running 19psi at
redline on the stock fuel
> system?
Yes. The only thing
that makes me nervous about the above equation is the
IDC readings. But I
figure, "Hell... if I'm gonna get +90% IDC readings at
15psi, I might as well
add WIS and increase the boost to 19psi while still
avoiding a lean condition
(detonation). If the injectors are gonna fail at
90% IDC at 15psi, they're
going to fail just as fast at 90% IDC at 19psi!" I
won't argue that the
injectors are maxing out in either situation. I'm
simply saying that if
you're gonna make your injectors work overtime, you
might as well get an
extra 4 psi worth of free horsepower for the same
amount of wear and
tear.
> I believe that
> you would have a lean condition and
therefore not be making
> optimum power.
Here we have another
misunderstanding. Lean conditions ALWAYS result in more
horsepower. TOO LEAN
results in detonation, which results in retarded
ignition timing, and
therefore less horsepower. If you're leaning out your
air/fuel mixture and
not getting detonation, you're making more horsepower.
> Therefore my
reason for upgrading the fuel system for 19psi
> is to achieve
>
maximum power, thus cooling is not the sole purpose of fuel upgrades.
I
disagree. Many of your assumptions are simply incorrect. When does
adding
more fuel give more power? I've never heard of this. More air AND fuel
I can
understand will obviously give more power. More fuel? NO. MOre air?
Yes.
Will fuel help lower the intake charge and allow you to increase
boost
without detonation? Yes. But the fuel is simply doing the job that a
WIS can
do better. It's a crude waste of fuel and gives no additional power
in
itself.
>
> Thanks for a thought inspiring reply,
>
Ken
Thanks for your reply.
Dave
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:22:09 -0700
From: David Chen <Neubine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: New Struts
Hey Steve,
I used to
have some Custom Gab Shocks that i put coilover sleves on and used
Cusco
Pillow Ball mount. They werer really really good but they like anything
cutsom they had
thier bugs. As of now I've sold those sets and I'm planning
to buy the TEIN coilover
set. They have a complete set of adjustable shocks
and coilover setup for our cars.
Currently they don't sell them over here but
a company called Deevo imports them. I plan
to buy the HA series which have
adjustable shocks. With shipping and tax they go for
around $1800. they have
a set with non-adjustable shock that go for $1600. In my mind
these are the
best for the bucks. Seeing as gabs are $1000 for shocks only and they
aren't
coilovers.
Check out www.deevo.com,
you have to ask specificaly for this setup cause it's a
special
order.
Check out www.tein.co.jp for pics and more info on the
Tein setup.
Hope this helps
David Chen
Neubine@ix.netcom.com
Steve
Sullivan wrote:
> Hey Ya'll
>
> Well it's time to replace
my struts and my motto is "If you have to
> replace it .... might as well
upgrade it! ". Any one replace stock
> struts on a VR-4 with the
GABs, KYBs or any others?? If so, what do you
>
> like about
them.. or dislike about them. Who carries the GABs or
> others
??
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Sully
>
> 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:
Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:24:09 -0700
From: David Chen <Neubine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Struts
Opps i forgot to mention that the price of 1800 includes
pillow ball
mounts =)
David Chen
Neubine@ix.netcom.com
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:06:23 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Intercooler/WIS vs. Injectors/VPC
Hey Dave et all.
>The
WIS poster DID NOT see detonation because the stock fuel system
was
>providing sufficient fuel at 19psi.
This is an assumption
of you but we do not have measured figures ! And I'm
pretty sure that over a
longer period the system would run into hesitation
problems due to the weak
fuel delivery.
>If he's not detonating, he's ok. If he didn't have
enough fuel, he'd be
>detonating. It's quite simple.
No no, he
did not detonating as the water cooled the combustion down so
much. John
Basol maybe runned the 19 psi up to 5000rpm and there is enough
fuel for the
air pushed in. But the situation changes pretty soon as rpm
increases
!
A base statement is that we all know detonation occurs due to the heat
in
the combustion chamber.
But what causes the heat going that high ?
-
- hot intake air (caused by the ambient, degraded efficiency of the
turbos,
small IC)
- - lean situation (not enough fuel)
>If one
has a 'lean' condition, as you put it, how would one know? You state
>that
detonation is not an indicator. Also then please tell me why a
'lean'
>condition, as you put it, is bad. I may be missing your
point.
A/F ratio (O2 sensors) and exhaust temperature are the indicators.
What if
you are reading temps of more than 1000°C in the exhaust without
detonation
? Your pistons will start melting and this will cause knock as
they start
"chattering" around in the cylinders. And there must not be any
detonation
but the exhaust gases temp can be way over the limit due to
this.
Interestingly retarding the timing causes such high temperatures but
no
detonation then.
>19psi with 9b turbos. Air/fuel ratio may
indeed be a problem with larger
>turbos, since they hold boost, i.e.
higher oxygen content, at higher RPM's.
>But we're talking about with
stock turbos. It may be a fortunate
peculiarity
>that the 9B's run out
of breath as the RPM increases.
Jack pointed this out already as well
as I added some figures to another
post from Chris regarding the
flow.
>> If detonation is taken care of with cooling by
water
>> injection, would you feel
>> comfortable running
19psi at redline on the stock fuel
>> system?
>Yes.
Ok, we
know now that the 9B are not capable to deliver this boost up to the
redline
and therefore we only speak in the lower rpm area. But his is more
torque
than hp related then !
>The only thing that makes me nervous about the
above equation is the
>IDC readings. But I figure, "Hell... if I'm gonna
get +90% IDC readings at
>15psi, I might as well add WIS and increase the
boost to 19psi while still
>avoiding a lean condition (detonation). If the
injectors are gonna fail at
>90% IDC at 15psi, they're going to fail just
as fast at 90% IDC at 19psi!"
Here's the problem. If you increase 4 psi
of boost you change the amount of
air going into the engine. The more air but
less fuel causes a degraded
relation and therefore a bad efficiency. The
system then tries to add more
fuel by increasing the time the injectors are
open, but they have been
already at 94% at 15psi ! Therefore the stock
injectors have to work much
more to deliver the appropriate amount of fuel to
be burnt.
Figure this : Let's say you run 17 psi of boost and you switch
off injector
#3 and unplug spark #3. What happens (besides it runs on 5 cyl.)
? The
amount of fuel is decreased by 1/6 but boost can still remain at 17 psi
as
the turbos deliver them ! But do we have a lean situation then ? No,
because
the other 5 are still getting the proper amount of fuel and #3 is
not
injecting nor ignitiing, the air is just going in and out. But the result
is
a loss of 1/6 of power (it will be more) due to the fact no fuel is burnt
in
#3. Of course you are running only on 5 cyl. and therefore the
working
amount of air used for burning the fuel is also lowered by 1/6 while
the
engine still sucks in the whole amount of air through the
TB.
>> Therefore my reason for upgrading the fuel system for
19psi
>> is to achieve
>> maximum power, thus cooling is not
the sole purpose of fuel upgrades.
>
>I disagree. Many of your
assumptions are simply incorrect. When does adding
>more fuel give more
power? I've never heard of this. More air AND fuel I
can
>understand
will obviously give more power. More fuel? NO. MOre air? Yes.
David, one
question : Where is the energy stored in ? Air or Fuel ?
How do we get the
energy out : We burn the stuff ;-) To be able to burn it
we need oxygen or
more simple air. The right mixture will give us the best
efficiency then.
Therefore : the more fuel we burn the more energy and the
more fuel we have
the more air we need (flow wise)
There is a simple formula to calculate
the energy in hp at RCs site :
http://www.rceng.com/technical.htm
Pleae
note fuel is the energy carrier and not air but air is needed to burn
the
fuel. Therefore, adding more fuel gives the system more energy. This is
no
assumption, this is fact. We can now discuss if the fuel is wasted to
cool
the system but we don't as we have now water to take the heat away. As
we
want to burn the added fuel we therefore also need more air to keep the
ratio
in the proper area. And this is done by increasing boost, as this
increases
the total air flow. If you only increase boost (not the amount of
fuel) there
is just nothing that produces more power then. Even more you'll
be running
too much on the leaner side and this results on a degraded
efficiency and
more heat than power is generated.
>Will fuel help lower the intake
charge and allow you to increase boost
>without detonation? Yes. But the
fuel is simply doing the job that a WIS
can
>do better. It's a crude
waste of fuel and gives no additional power in
>itself.
Sure,
nobody speaks against this !
One thing nobody spoke about yet was fuel
quality. Increasing the octane
number increases also the detonation point. So
does this mean that this kind
of fuel lowers the combustion temp or creates a
richer condition ???
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:41:57 -0500
From: "Basol, John" <jbasol@Carlson.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: WI - Pump
-----Original Message-----
From: R.G. [SMTP:robby@freesurf.ch]
Sent:
Monday, July 12, 1999 3:04 PM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Re: Team3S: WI - Pump
Ok, pump died but what water filter are you using
or is delivered
with teh
pump ? You may change the thing as well ?
The filter I'm using came with the Spearco. It is actually
a
Motorcraft filter of some kind (made by Ford)
As far as I remember,
the nozzle
is installed in the ellbow of the y-pipe, but where
exactly
(under-side,
upper side, etc.) ERL told me to watch the postion of
teh yet as it
should
not be un the lower half of the pipe due to oil
deposits that may
appear
there. Of course I got the information AFTER I
already isntalled the
front
jet :((( But it shouldn't be a problem as it
is not in the ellbow
and
mounted in about 40° angle.
My jet (I only
use one) is mounted right after the 90 degree bend in
the Y-pipe, just before
the TB. It is mounted slightly higher than half way
up. I guess I
got lucky with that. I didn't really think about oil
deposits, or any
other kind of deposits when I installed it, but towards the
top of the pipe
was simply easier to get at for installation purposes.
> Water
consumption has changed a bit now. I went through almost a
>whole tank of
water in about 75 "spirited" miles.
How big is the tank ?
The tank
is about ½ to ¾ of a gallon.
>tried the next size larger water jet and
the car did not like it,
so I went
>back.
What were the symptons
?
(Keep ion mind I had done this with the old pump). When I
stepped
on the gas and boost built up the car was fine, but as soon as I let
off the
foot feet the car would sputter out and die. It seamed as if
the water flow
couldn't be halted fast enough and some water was running out
of the jet
just after I closed the throttle, thus killing the engine.
So I went back
to using the middle size jet and everything was fine
again. The jets they
include with the Spearco are .018", .025", and
.033"
> My recommendation, anyone looking to use a Spearco, replace
that
>stupid pump that comes with it with a big fuel pump.
Well,
the price for the Spearco is that low that additional $50 is
not a
big
deal :))
My thoughts exactly. I still don't know about the
corrosion factor
with this new pump though. I hadn't thought about
it. I guess I'll have to
be the test case again.
:-)
-John
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
End
of Team3S Digest V1 #230
****************************
For unsubscribe
info and FAQ, see our web page at http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm