--
From: owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
(Team3S Digest)
To: stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Team3S Digest V1 #243
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
Thursday, July 29 1999 Volume 01
: Number
243
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:18:34 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Team3S:
Y-pipe joint
In my car, the plastic Y pipe connection to the throotle
body does not seem
to have any type of grommet or gasket. it is simply a hose
clamp connection.
Is this normal or did the dealer left parts
out?
second question,
since the dealer put a new short block in my
car, I have lost significant
power between 800 rpm to probably 1800 rpm.
seems like the engine is running
lean within that range.
any ideas
why?
and last,
the shop manual warns about using cleaning
solutions for the throttle body.
It says something like "close the lower
holes, to protect the special
coating"
any ideas what it is talking
about and what would be the problems?
my engine developed flats spots
when below 50F at low RPM, do you think this
is an extension of second
problem above?
Waiting for opinions!
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:41:47 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Y-pipe joint
>In my car, the plastic Y pipe connection to the
throotle body does not seem
>to have any type of grommet or gasket. it is
simply a hose clamp
connection.
>
>Is this normal or did the
dealer left parts out?
It has a rubber grommet on the inside for
sure. Otherwise it would pop-off
at a few PSI (or leaks like
hell)
>since the dealer put a new short block in my car, I have lost
significant
>power between 800 rpm to probably 1800 rpm. seems like the
engine is
running
>lean within that range.
More fat than
lean. I'd let someone hook a sensor tester on it.
>the shop manual
warns about using cleaning solutions for the throttle body.
>It says
something like "close the lower holes, to protect the
special
>coating"
>
>any ideas what it is talking about and
what would be the problems?
The idle stepper motor can be clogged up
due to cleaning and the dirt going
into the small holes.
>my engine
developed flats spots when below 50F at low RPM, do you think
this
>is
an extension of second problem above?
Again, maybe a sensor problem.
Check the ECU for any codes set.
>Waiting for
opinions!
Maybe you have to wait even longer for more opinions as
your problems are
not common !
Hope this helps,
Roger
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:41:21 +1200
From: Kevin Clark <Kevin.Clark@hnz.co.nz>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Y-pipe joint
> In my car, the plastic Y pipe connection to
the throotle
> body does not seem to have any type of grommet or
gasket.
> it is simply a hose clamp connection.
>
> Is this
normal or did the dealer left parts out?
I assume that you do not run
high boost as this Y pipe
would not stay on :)
The Y-pipe should
have a rubber grommet/seal that sits
in the end of the pipe with a little lip
that you should
be able to see.
This rubber does wear and while the
removal of the Y
pipe is fairly easy, the replacement of it can be a
real
nightmare. People have tried a number of ways to
make this easier such
as wet it with water, and heat
it with a hair dryer.
The unfortunate
thing is that this piece of rubber
can not be purchased without the Y-pipe
(over here
in NZ that item is about US$120). This has lead to
a
number of ways of fixing the rubber once it has
"split", such as superglue it
to the Y-pipe, etc :)
If you are missing this piece of rubber and
your
Y-pipe is not blowing off then I, for one, would be
very interested
in knowing what they have used as a
replacement...
Cheers,
Kevin
Clark
'91 GTO-VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:56:25 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Y-pipe joint
The throttle body has a lip, the plastic y-pipe fits
over the lip and the
hose clamp creates a snug fit, the plastic is
permanently deformed to assume
the shape, almost perfect. However, the pipe
has slots to allow for
deformation of the edges. I think it leaks.
may
max boost is 14 psi, very short. I have 9Gs and run 12 psi
which
unfortunately boost goes down to 6 psi at high rpm.
on the
lean/rich issue, I suspect lean because:
1 With hot
weather and hot engine, starting up a hill, at approx. 1500
rpm, the engine
sometimes knocks laudly. Lean mixtures increase the tendency
to
knock.
2 lean mixtures create drivability problems with
cold engine
3 rich mixtures can be dissipated with
skilful application of the gas
pedal, like clearing out your throat. (I used
to use 45 DCOE webers all my
young years) In the case with the mitsu, cannot
get around the hesitation
with the gas pedal. (no acceleration pump either,
to create artificialy rich
conditions, I used to do with
carbs)
4 no black smoke.
Do you think it is
rich, not lean? is the stock O2 sensors sufficienly
accurate within
that range? I will hookup my data acquision and try to
measure.
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:04:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Dennis Moore <stealth@kiva.net>
Subject: Team3S:
Well, you guys tried...
[OK, I get kinda verbose here...]
Thanks
to all who offered correct diagnoses of my tranny problems. I'm
really
kicking myself for not recognizing the urgency of the problem
sooner than I
did, and I'll be crying as I pay the repair bill.
Here's the skinny: I'd
been having tranny problems for a while, where the
shifter knob was jumping a
bit while in 5th gear. I continued driving it,
thinking that if I
didn't use 5th, it wouldn't get any worse. Wrong! It
soon
devolved into the transmission dropping out of 5th completely when I
took my
foot off the gas.
Matt and others correctly identified the problem as a
supposedly
self-locking nut that wasn't. The day I received that
suggestion, I drove
the car home and parked it in the garage, where it has
sat until now.
While walking from the garage to my house, I found a piece of
cast
aluminum that looked ominous. It was.
I finally looked it
over last night. Turns out that nut had nearly backed
itself off the
5th gear shaft assembly. In the process, it punched a
large hole in the
cover. (NOT the main housing, thank goodness, but one
of the "other"
covers.) That "hole" was the piece I found on the ground.
So,
here are the questions:
1. Will replacing and torqueing the nut,
replacing the cover, and
changing out what's left of the tranny fluid be
enough?
2. Or should I have the tech completely disassemble the thing
looking for
other possible damage?
3. When I get the car towed in,
should I have it "towed" or "flatbed"?
4. Will the parts discounters
that have been mentioned here before be the
place to go for that cover, or
should I look for a junker in a scrap yard?
Thanks.
Dennis
Moore
stealth@kiva.net
93 Stealth
ES
Yes, I'm afraid you *did* go to college for this job.
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:41:27 -0500
From: Merritt <merritt@cedar-rapids.net>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Well, you guys tried...
>I finally looked it over last
night. Turns out that nut had nearly backed
>itself off the 5th gear
shaft assembly. In the process, it punched a
>large hole in the
cover. (NOT the main housing, thank goodness, but one
>of the
"other" covers.) That "hole" was the piece I found on the
ground.
>
Dennis' problem reminds me of the time I was wailing through
a turn flat
out in my 67 Riviera. The 'ol 430 cu. in.375 hp
Riv engine was just
a'screamin' in second gear, the tires were squalling and
spinning, and the
car was in a glorious power slide with the tail out when
all of a sudden it
said "CLANG!!! RATTLERATTLERATTLERATTLE"
Oshit, I
said, what have I done now? I coasted all the way down a long
hill, pulled
into a gas station, and we put it up on the lift.
Turns out I threw a
flywheel bolt. At very high revs, it came through the
top of the bellhousing,
and knocked out about a 4-in chunk, leaving a
gaping hole, then the bolt
dropped back down inside where it made a
ferocious rattle as it caromed off
the spinning flywheel. Omigawd, I said,
this'll cost a fortune to
fix!
Nah, said the mechanic. Just clean it off real good, cover it with
racer's
tape (duct tape), and in a few weeks it'll be so dirty no one will
ever
know there was a hole there. Which is exactly what I did.
Maybe
this might work for Dennis.
Rich/old poop/94 VR4
>
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:40:52 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Well, you guys tried...
> So, here are the questions:
> 1.
Will replacing and torqueing the nut, replacing the cover, and
> changing
out what's left of the tranny fluid be enough?
> 2. Or should I have
the tech completely disassemble the thing looking for
> other possible
damage?
> 3. When I get the car towed in, should I have it "towed"
or "flatbed"?
> 4. Will the parts discounters that have been
mentioned here before be the
> place to go for that cover, or should I
look for a junker in a scrap yard?
Ugh... Sorry I was right, but
this might not be as bad as it seems...
If it is just jumping out of 5th
gear and the other gears all still work
properly then there's a chance you
are okay. You are going to have to
replace the end cover and the end
nut for sure. The safest thing to do is
to take the tranny off the car,
open it up and wash out whatever pieces of
metal made their way into the
case. Since the nut tore through the end
cover, I'm going to guess that
a lot of metal shavings are going to be in
the tranny fluid. There's no
filter in the tranny, so whatever particles
are in there will spray around in
the tranny until they are finally
collected by a magnet deep in the tranny
case.
If you are really tight on cash, you could just drain the tranny
fluid, take
the end cover off, replace the nut and stake it down good, put
the cover
back on (with gasket sealant), and fill the tranny with
fluid. There's a
chance that the metal filings will be small enough
that they won't affect
the gears and will likely get caught by the
magnet. There's also a magnet
on the drain plug, which will tend to
attract filings. If you go this
route, I'd change tranny fluid a couple
times maybe once every couple weeks
until the plug comes out pretty
clean.
The best way is to take it apart, but if it was me I might be
tempted to
just fix what's broke and keep my fingers crossed on the
rest.
Since your car is a FWD, you could have it either towed or
flatbedded.
Flatbed is preferable as there's less chance of inadvertent
damage occurring
while the tow is in progress.
You could look for a
cover in a junkyard. DSM (Talon/Eclipse/Laser) covers
will probably
fit. There's a "wave" spring in the cover. Watch the
orientation
of this spring if you take it off the cover. You'll know what I
mean
when you see it. Remember that you have to actually bend in the ring
of
the nut into the detents in the shaft in order to get it to stay, it
isn't
really "self-locking".
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:36:12 -0700
From: "Dave Allison" <dallison@siebel.com>
Subject:
Team3S: RE: Exhaust Upgrade = Power? (was: Upgrades)
In last month's
Sport Compact Car article on the Subaru Impreza 2.5
RS, they dynoed the AWD
car at the same shop I dynoed mine... UPRD in
Huntington Beach. I was
relieved to see the results they got from the
Impreza. This car, rated at 165
flywheel hp, was dynoed to the tune of 96hp
at the wheels! That's a 42% loss!
My initial dyno run, WITH HKS INTAKE AND
HKS EXHAUST, resulted in a 196.1
wheel hp reading. With a 42% loss this puts
the car at 337hp.
Hmmmm...
I seem to recall the old HKS vehicle chart for the 91-93 3000GT
VR-4 going
something like this:
1991 to 93 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4/Dodge Stealth R/T
Turbo
Stock (300 hp @ 9 psi)
Stage 1 (323 hp @ 9.5 psi)
Turbo
Exhaust System
Stage 2 (337 hp @ 10 psi)
Super Power Flow Air
Filter
Stage 2 is 337hp! OK... these dyno numbers are starting to
make more
sense. After installing the boost controller, BOV, wires, and plugs
I rolled
the dyno to the tune of 226.9 wheel hp. Using the 42% loss equation
we now
see 390 flywheel hp! This is somewhat less than the 400-406 range that
Roger
Gerl's group experienced, but could be attributed to the fact that the
tech
forgot to gap the plugs to .035 when he installed the NGK's. It
was
noticeably misfiring when I drove the car back up north. After resolving
the
spark plug gap issue it then felt stronger with no hesitation.
406hp
stronger? I dunno. At least 10 more hp by the feel of my ass. (feel it
for
yourself if you don't believe me! ;) )
So 'my experience' shows
that the exhaust does indeed increase hp
when upgraded from stock. I can't
speak for everyone else who feels that
they wasted their money on their
exhausts. All I can say is that mine was
well worth the money and showed an
increase in performance. My dyno results
and the results of HKS make me feel
confident of this. I'm glad that SCC
published the UPRD article giving me
some insight into the numbers generated
by UPRD's AWD dyno. I'm glad they had
comparable results.
Seeya!
Dave
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Errin Humphrey [mailto:errin@u.washington.edu]
>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 3:57 PM
> To: 3S Starnet Mailing
List
> Subject: Exhaust Upgrade = Power? (was: Upgrades)
>
>
> Erik Gross wrote:
>
> >An aftermarket exhaust will not
give you 15-20hp in a 3000GT
> VR-4. If
> >fact, it's
likely that an exhaust will give you little
> power, or even a
power
> >LOSS. Several people in Europe (where they have access
to an AWD
> >dyno) tested several cars with a number of mods.
They found
> that the stock
> >exhaust gave HIGHER HP AND TORQUE
on the cars they tested!
>
> Erik and others,
>
>
Those dyno runs made by Roger et al have been useful reference points
>
for our cars, but they do not tell the whole story. An
>
aftermarket exhaust
> on a VR4 will easily give 15-20 rwhp and probably
more like 30-40+ hp.
> Most people gain about 3-5 mph in the 1/4 after
adding
> exhaust/downpipe
> and/or gutting precats, and some have
gained even more. I
> gained an avg.
> of about 3-4 mph in
the 1/4 w/ exhaust alone, and I think
> Jack T. gained
> about
5mph. The general rule of thumb is that for each mph
> you gain in
the
> 1/4 corresponds to an increase of approximately 10rwhp. I have
never
> heard of anyone have their mph stay constant or decrease
>
after reducing
> the exhaust backpressure on our ~turbocharged~
cars.
>
> The problem with the dyno runs is their very
nature.
> Automobiles were not
> designed to make high power
while sitting still. They were
> designed to
> make high
power at speeds which provide massive airflow which
> is nearly
>
impossible to reproduce in a dyno shop. I have mentioned this
problem
> to them and another guy who had dismal dyno numbers at a
California
> dyno shop. They are ~starving~ their cars for
air. The
> problem is worsened
> by the fact that our
turbocharged cars are designed to make high boost
> at a speed where the
intercoolers are able to greatly reduce
> air charge
> temperatures
and thus prevent detonation. I have several
> times
suggested
> that this must be the prime reason why Roger and the others
> were noticing
> tons of knock (from detonation) when dynoing
their cars.
> This is greatly
> exacerbated when you make a
series of runs (just one run on a
> dyno will
> raise your engine
temps to dangerous levels, and people seldom let
> their cars adequately
cool b/c they are being charged by the
> hour). And
> keep in
mind that when sufficient knock is present, the computer will
>
drastically retard the timing thus leading to huge decreases
> in power
(esp.
> for a free-flowing exhaust car which is demanding more air).
[IIRC,
> Roger actually blew his engine while on the dyno, but he blames
it on
> his extended 170mph Autobahn runs . . .]
>
> Most
dyno shops have fans, but any competent dyno technician can tell
> you
that this is nowhere near the amount of air that is
> flowing when
your
> car is moving at just 60mph. Stick your hand out the window
on the
> freeway some time to find out. And keep in mind that dyno
runs on our
> cars are usually made in 3rd gear which when redlined would
have put
> your car at about 122mph. When I was on the Supra list I
learned that
> most of them get lousy dyno numbers unless they take every
possible
> measure to attempt to simulate the airflow of higher
speeds.
> This includes
> icing the intercoolers, icing the
engine, icing all the
> piping, and making
> sure that you have the
biggest damn fan on the planet blowing at the
> front of your car.
In addition, you must give your car adequate cool
> down periods between
runs. Of all the guys I've talked to who have
> dyno'd, none of them
did any icing techniques (and admittedly it would
> be somewhat difficult
to adequately ice the intercoolers),
> and I am quite
> skeptical
as to whether the fans were of sufficient size for our cars.
>
>
Roger Gerl and the rest of the Euro dyno-ers are all really
> nice guys,
and
> I do appreciate all the time they took to tell us about their
> dyno runs as
> well as accepting feedback. However, I
haven't really cared for the
> frequency and fervor with which they
continually tell people (mostly
> newcomers) on the Team3S mailing list
(and it gets repeated here) that
> "upgrading exhaust gives no power
increase because our dyno
> runs say so."
> If that were the case
then we would never see increases in trapspeeds
> after upgrading exhaust,
regardless of the fact that the "1mph = 10hp"
> dragger's rule is just an
estimate. And furthermore I am too
> pessimistic
> about the
airflow problems with their dyno runs. I am more
> than
willing
> to accept that one day they might get the airflow issue
>
straightened out
> and "prove" that a freer-flowing exhaust doesn't
provide power gains
> (which in itself makes no sense for a turbocharged
car), yet
> until then
> I will just state my case to anyone who
gets told this
> without hearing the
> whole story (since I don't
want this to turn into an argument
> on Team3S).
>
> Over
and out,
>
> --Errin "shyakai no mado ga aite imasu"
Humphrey
> Yellow 94 VR4
> Seattle, WA
>
>
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:51:45 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Team3S:
AWD dyno
42% loss seems enormous. Is it possible that the dyno is not
properly
calibrated?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is
http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:52:32 -0500
From: "Shawn and Sarah Cullen" <spcullen@prodigy.net>
Subject:
Team3S: Re: Electrical Gremlin in my car
I've got this electrical
problem with my 92 SL. It seems that about half
the time, when I open
the door, the door open light doesn't illuminate on
the panel.
Subsequently, the security system will not arm, and the interior
light
doesn't illuminate.
I thought the first time it did this I had blown a
fuse or something,
however if this were the case, it wouldn't work at all,
right? As it
stands, it will work sometimes and won't some other
times.
Has anyone else ever encountered this problem? If it's a
short somewhere,
where and how would I check and repair?
I'm not very
good with electrical problems, so any help would be
greatly
appreciated. I'm not too crazy about my new found option --
"intermittant
security".
Thanks in advance!
Shawn Cullen
92
SL
- -----Original Message-----
From: Murat Okcuoglu <murat@ashacorp.com>
To: Dave Allison
<dallison@siebel.com>; stealth@starnet.net
<stealth@starnet.net>; stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
<stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
Date:
Wednesday, July 28, 1999 7:00 PM
Subject: Team3S: AWD dyno
>42%
loss seems enormous. Is it possible that the dyno is not
properly
>calibrated?
>
>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:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:12:43 -0700
From: "Bob Forrest" <bf@bobforrest.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Re: Electrical Gremlin in my car
I don't think it's
electrical... A quick guess is that it's mechanical--
just a sticky
switch on the door jamb. I don't know what or where that is
on the SL,
but once you locate it, some alcohol or lighter fluid and a
toothbrush will
clean out the gunk that's making (what I think is) the
mechanical switch
sluggish... If it's a "mating magnet" electrical switch,
gunk could be
the cause there, too...
F
- -----Original Message-----From: Shawn
and Sarah Cullen
<spcullen@prodigy.net>
>I've got
this electrical problem with my 92 SL. It seems that about half
>the
time, when I open the door, the door open light doesn't illuminate on
>the
panel. Subsequently, the security system will not arm, and
the
interior
>light doesn't illuminate.
>
>I thought the
first time it did this I had blown a fuse or something,
>however if this
were the case, it wouldn't work at all, right? As it
>stands, it
will work sometimes and won't some other times.
>
>Has anyone else
ever encountered this problem? If it's a short somewhere,
>where and
how would I check and repair?
>
>I'm not very good with electrical
problems, so any help would be greatly
>appreciated. I'm not too
crazy about my new found option --
"intermittant
>security".
>
>Thanks in
advance!
>
>Shawn Cullen
>92
SL
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Murat Okcuoglu
<murat@ashacorp.com>
>To:
Dave Allison <dallison@siebel.com>; stealth@starnet.net
><stealth@starnet.net>; stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
><stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
>Date:
Wednesday, July 28, 1999 7:00 PM
>Subject: Team3S: AWD
dyno
>
>
>>42% loss seems enormous. Is it possible that the
dyno is not properly
>>calibrated?
>>
>>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
>
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:09:47 -0700
From: "Bob Forrest" <bf@bobforrest.com>
Subject: Team3S:
Dyno losses... (was: Exhaust Upgrade = Power? )
A 42% loss doesn't sound
right... I know there must be a vast difference
between an AWD dyno and
a standard one, but I just did a dyno run yesterday
on my FWD Stealth NT at
Frey Racing in Mountain View, and the guy said
something like a 15%
loss... My '94 Stealth base is rated at 164 HP, stock,
but I removed
the resonator and have a K&N FIPK, so I expected to see a few
more HP--
sure enough, the dyno said 170 HP, and 145 HP at the wheels
(torque 170,
BTW). (All these guys do is try to squeeze every available HP
out of
the (incredibly impressive) array of NASCAR and SCCA cars they have
in their
shop... Out of more than a dozen cars in the shop when I was
there, I
don't think one of them was under 500 HP.)
If your dyno run was accurate,
that gives new hope to us non-turbo types,
since the turbos have ~100% more
engine HP than base models, (320 compared
to 164), but only ~35% more HP to
the wheels (196 compared to 145)!? And we
NT's have lots less weight to
lug...
I'll have another post about it soon, but this was a before- and
after- dyno
run while I was doing a test on the eRAM Electric
Supercharger. In short:
without chopping up my intake, we just stuck
the eRAM on the FIPK side of
the MAS with some sloppy gaffer tape, which left
the eRAM (and mini K&N
filter) sticking out of the hood at about a 35
degree angle from square at
the "in" end of the MAS... Even with the
crummy temporary install, we still
dyno'd a 5 HP gain with the eRAM in
place. (It'll probably be almost double
that, 8 to 10 HP when I fashion
a new smooth intake replacement with a
re-positioned MAS - a summer
project). We never even got to test the Super
eRAM, which is what I
really wanted... Based on what I saw on the
printouts, I'm hoping for 8
to 10 HP from the eRAM, and 15 HP out of the
Super eRAM (which should
translate to 15 to 20 HP [eRAM] and 25 to 30 HP
[Super eRAM] for you turbo
guys). That's if my ancient engineering skills
are good enough to
redesign the intake system of the entire Stealth/3000GT
line...!
(Gulp!) Other engineers please respond with ideas-- this is
for
real! Roger, et al..., let's rock & roll!!!
More eRAM
stuff in a separate post...
Forrest
- -----Original
Message-----From: Dave Allison <dallison@siebel.com>
> In last
month's Sport Compact Car article on the Subaru Impreza 2.5
>RS, they
dynoed the AWD car at the same shop I dynoed mine... UPRD in
>Huntington
Beach. I was relieved to see the results they got from the
>Impreza. This
car, rated at 165 flywheel hp, was dynoed to the tune of 96hp
>at the
wheels! That's a 42% loss! My initial dyno run, WITH HKS INTAKE AND
>HKS
EXHAUST, resulted in a 196.1 wheel hp reading. With a 42% loss
this
puts
>the car at 337hp.
- --------balance of post
snipped------------
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:50:50 -0400
From: Michael Booker <mrbook@gate.net>
Subject: Team3S: NA
mods.
Have a couple of questions:
1). Do NA's have precats?
Anybody checked and gutted them?
2). I am planning to send my injectors to RC
engineering, and while i'm
in there, would Polishing/Porting the intake
manifold help? If so, Has
anybody done this? Is this something I can do with
a die grinder in my
garage? Anything to watch out for..to do or not do?
Thanks,
Matt
#311
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page
is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 01:26:39 -0400
From: Jason Barnhart <phnxgld@erols.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Re: Electrical Gremlin in my car
I agree with Bob,
this one switch could cause these problems. It's typically referred
to
as a pin switch, chances are you've see it. It actually looks like a
little pin and
operates like the light in your refrigerator. The door
opens, a spring pushes the pin
out and an electrical contact at the back of
the pin touches another contact at the door
and completes the ground.
This turns the light on, it's always connected to positive,
but the circuit
isn't complete until the ground is connected. Chances are one of
two
things is happening, either the spring has weakened, or the contacts are
dirty. I
haven't tried pulling the pin switch on my 3000 yet, but I've
been dealing with the dome
light not turning on. I've verified it's the
switch by fiddling (for lack of better
terms) with it and the light comes
on. Typically the switch will just unscrew like a
bolt, and the contact
will just unplug at the rear. You can try removing it,cleaning
it, and
maybe stretching the spring a bit. When I get home this morning, I'll pull
the
switch (provided I remember) and verify that's it's similar to the
typicall door pin
switches. I do have the feeling that there may be
more than one contact on the rear of
the pin, my dome light won't come on,
but the red light on the door will...
Btw, on my car, it's at the
lower rear section of the door jam and covered by a rubber
seal to protect it
from the elements.
Jason
Bob Forrest wrote:
> I don't
think it's electrical... A quick guess is that it's mechanical--
>
just a sticky switch on the door jamb. I don't know what or where that
is
> on the SL, but once you locate it, some alcohol or lighter fluid and
a
> toothbrush will clean out the gunk that's making (what I think is)
the
> mechanical switch sluggish... If it's a "mating magnet"
electrical switch,
> gunk could be the cause there, too...
>
>
F
snip
>
> > It seems that about half
> >the
time, when I open the door, the door open light doesn't illuminate on
>
>the panel. Subsequently, the security system will not arm, and
the
> interior
> >light doesn't illuminate
snip
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:46:54 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Dyno losses...
>A 42% loss doesn't sound right...
It
doesn't sound right to me as well ! The loss we measured (!) was about
28%
and I already felt that this is a lot. But it seems that this is not
uncommon
for AWD cars measured on a dyno. Therefore the figure may be way
off but also
used for the engine hp rating and this confuses me a lot.
>If your
dyno run was accurate, that gives new hope to us non-turbo types,
>since
the turbos have ~100% more engine HP than base models, (320 compared
>to
164), but only ~35% more HP to the wheels (196 compared to 145)!?
And
we
>NT's have lots less weight to lug...
Ahem, there must be
something wrong. I always thought that the engine hp was
rated at 222hp for
the NAs. If 164hp are the wheel hp the tranny loss may be
lower than on our
what results in about 260hp on our TTs.
>Super eRAM (which should
translate to 15 to 20 HP [eRAM] and 25 to 30 HP
>[Super eRAM] for you
turbo guys).
No, the thing cannot add any pony to a turbo car. It may
help in the
below-boost area and during shifting but when boost is maxed at
around 2850
the thing is more a restriction then. As the engine sucks in more
than
700cfm at high boost I can't see the eRAM can help anything. The
limitation
is still internal boost and our enemy detonation and adding one or
two psi
doesn't cure any of these.
Hope to see the dyno sheet soon
:)
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page
is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:44:57 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: RE: Exhaust Upgrade = Power? (dynoing cars, extremely
long)
>Hmmmm... I seem to recall the old HKS vehicle chart for the
91-93 3000GT
>VR-4 going something like this:
>
>1991 to 93
Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4/Dodge Stealth R/T Turbo
>
>Stock (300 hp @ 9
psi)
>
>Stage 1 (323 hp @ 9.5 psi)
>Turbo Exhaust
System
>
>Stage 2 (337 hp @ 10 psi)
>Super Power Flow Air
Filter
Haha, this is the known HKS joke. Why do they tell that adding
an exhaust
increases the boost ????? Also assuming this, 1 psi gives you
37hp.
Therefore running 15 psi of boost will result in 185hp -> 485hp ...
yes,
sure and I'm the King of Mars !
> Stage 2 is 337hp! OK...
these dyno numbers are starting to make more
>sense. After installing the
boost controller, BOV, wires, and plugs I
rolled
>the dyno to the tune
of 226.9 wheel hp. Using the 42% loss equation we now
>see 390 flywheel
hp!
Wheel hp measured and the loss look very odd !
>This is
somewhat less than the 400-406 range that Roger
>Gerl's group experienced,
but could be attributed to the fact that the tech
>forgot to gap the plugs
to .035 when he installed the NGK's. It was
>noticeably misfiring when I
drove the car back up north. After resolving
the
>spark plug gap issue
it then felt stronger with no hesitation. 406hp
>stronger? I dunno. At
least 10 more hp by the feel of my ass. (feel it for
>yourself if you
don't believe me! ;) )
Yes, Mike did this during the dyno sessions and he
got rid of the
detonationbelow 15 psi then.
>So 'my experience'
shows that the exhaust does indeed increase hp
>when upgraded from stock.
I can't speak for everyone else who feels that
>they wasted their money on
their exhausts. All I can say is that mine was
>well worth the money and
showed an increase in performance.
So how do you explain that three cars
had the very same dyno results with
two cars had aftermarket exhausts and one
was stock besides a K&N and boost
controller (regapped plugs) ? And also
note that the car with the best power
WAS THE ONE WITH STOCK EXHAUST :) Mine
had the highest torque curve due to
the 13Gs as well as I had lower discharge
temperatures than the Stealths.
Even more both Stealths showed the same temps
but with different exhausts.
Therefore an aftermarket exhaust does not help
the turbos as on both cars
they still have to do some hard work. As the
pressure difference between in
front the turbo and afterwards causes the
turbine to spool, a larger
difference makes them more efficient. Therefore
one would assume that
reducing the backpressure increases the efficiency. One
positive side effect
is that the discharge temperature is also be lower.
Unfortunately our
measurements did not show any difference :(
So what
does the cat-back exhaust do performance wise ? It's weight and a
better
spool-up of the turbos between shifting. Therefore a real gain in the
1/4
mile can be found, but as said, it doesn't d give you more horses
!
>My dyno results and the results of HKS make me feel confident of
this. I'm
glad that SCC
>published the UPRD article giving me some
insight into the numbers
generated
>by UPRD's AWD dyno. I'm glad they
had comparable results.
I spoke with several dyno-owners here in
Switzerland and they told me that
they found a loss of 20-30% on AWD cars and
12-18% on 2WD cars. You know
those guys are having Porsche Carrera 4, Audi
Quattros (especially the
current S4, 270hp, 2.7litre Bi-Turbo AWD), Diablo VT
(AWD Monster) on their
dynos and have experience since years. BTW, the Diablo
was measured with
632hp DIN corrected (engine)
In my point of view
UPRD has still to learn a lot and the longer it takes
the less loss they will
find. Also the way how they run the car on the dyno
is strange and resulting
dyno sheet is very unclear (at least what Dave told
us about the sheet after
his dyno day)
I'll be on the dyno pretty soon to tune in the water
injection. I currently
have the full stock exhaust back on the car and we'll
first find the
detonation point before tuning in the WI. This will gives us a
good sheet to
compare then.
Later,
Roger
93'3000GT
TT
>> An aftermarket exhaust on a VR4 will easily give 15-20 rwhp
and
>> probably more like 30-40+ hp. Most people gain about 3-5
mph
>> in the 1/4 after adding exhaust/downpipe and/or gutting
precats,
>> and some have gained even more. I gained an avg. of
about 3-4 mph
>> in the 1/4 w/ exhaust alone, and I think Jack T.
gained
>> about 5mph. The general rule of thumb is that for each
mph
>> you gain in the 1/4 corresponds to an increase of approximately
10rwhp.
This is the typical misleading from the earlier years. This
because
everything is based on NA, nitrous or SC cars but not on turbo
charged cars.
The big problems on turbo cars is the lag on the system and we
cannot
eliminate it. Here a better flowing exhaust helps (as well a BOV may
be able
to do)
I do not like if someone just says "exhaust". This
because we have :
- - pre-cats
- - downpipe
- - main cat
- -
cat-back (piping, muffler)
Therefore we must be careful on what we are
talking about. And the dyno
sheets show that changing the cat-back, removing
the main cat and replacing
the dp didn't helped anything. As measured on the
same dyno, same day with
same environment we can say that this is fact
!
>> The problem with the dyno runs is their very
nature.
>> Automobiles were not designed to make high power while
sitting still.
They were
>> designed to make high power at speeds
which provide massive airflow which
>> is nearly impossible to
reproduce in a dyno shop.
And this is why the hood is kept open during
the dyno and there is no
air-resistance (dunno the right word). And as the
massive air resitance is
not calcuated in any power formula it is more
accurate on the dyno. The only
drawback is the less cooling on the ICs and
therefore the less power due to
the less dense. But an earlier test showed
that on my car this made only a
difference of about 2.5 hp with the fan
switched off. Also our ambient
temperature on February was 10°C in the dyno
room and therefore air was
dense enough.
>> I have several times
suggested that this must be the prime reason why
Roger and the
others
>> were noticing tons of knock (from detonation) when dynoing
their cars.
>> This is greatly exacerbated when you make a series of
runs (just one run
on a
>> dyno will raise your engine temps to
dangerous levels, and people seldom
let
>> their cars adequately
cool b/c they are being charged by the
>> hour).
No, this is not
really true although your theory is very right. I had my car
on the dyno 5
times with the oil temperature measured. It never went higher
than 112°C
(usually stayed below 100°C) compared to a 300ZX TT with temps of
up to 160°C
and the Supra with 143°C. Also the water temperature never ever
moved a
little and therefore was not a problem. I thought that on one
Stealth it was
moving just a very little but negligible.
>> And keep in mind that
when sufficient knock is present, the computer will
>> drastically
retard the timing thus leading to huge decreases in
power
(esp.
>> for a free-flowing exhaust car which is demanding
more air).
Well, in a turbo system the turbos themselfes are a
restriction as this is
how the system works. As described before (pressure
difference) a free flow
exhaust helps to improve efficiency and the pressure
before the turbos is
what counts. But of course more pressure then can also
cause some
temperature and backpressure problems. You are right about the
detonation /
knock but I had the same knock at 15+ psi also on the
road.
>> Roger actually blew his engine while on the dyno, but he
blames it on
>> his extended 170mph Autobahn runs . . .]
No, my
engine blew during my ignorance after I installed the boost
controller during
my G-Tech sessions. During the Autobahn runs the knock was
then hearable and
the oil steam comming out of the BOV was very visible :( I
did the 174mph
with the engine already in a bad shape and I'm sure the other
rings then
finally went south.
>> Most dyno shops have fans, but any competent
dyno technician can tell
>> you that this is nowhere near the amount of
air that is
>> flowing when your car is moving at just 60mph.
Stick your hand out the
window on the
>> freeway some time to find
out.
And exactly here you'll learn how much power it takes to get through
this
resistance. I think that this is definitely not a negligible
amount.
Finally, less cooling but no air drag may give you close numbers for
street
and dyno.
>> And keep in mind that dyno runs on
our
>> cars are usually made in 3rd gear which when redlined would have
put
>> your car at about 122mph.
No, 4th gear i.e. as close to
1:1 as possible. But a good dyno measures the
difference and the result
should be the same finally. Unfortunately, we had
a strange high hp measuring
as the rolls slipped in 3rd gear too much.
>> When I was on the
Supra list I learned that most of them get lousy dyno
>> numbers unless
they take every possible measure to attempt to simulate
the
>>
airflow of higher speeds. This includes icing the intercoolers, icing
the
engine,
>> icing all the piping, and making sure that you have
the biggest damn fan
on the
>> planet blowing at the front of your
car.
You know that the Supras have tiny IC stuff and are getting pretty
hot very
quick. Upon our experience this is not a real problem on our cars,
at least
not in the 15psi area ! And you also know how much more boost the
Supra need
to achieve the same amount of power increase as we do. So what
they really
do is to maximize the dyno output as high as possible. IMHO this
does not
work on the road as the humidity changes and therefore the results
may be
way different. This may lead into a wrong way and will result in
engine
problems.
>> In addition, you must give your car adequate
cool
>> down periods between runs. Of all the guys I've talked to
who have
>> dyno'd, none of them did any icing techniques (and
admittedly it would
>> be somewhat difficult to adequately ice the
intercoolers),
>> and I am quite skeptical as to whether the fans were
of sufficient size
for our cars.
Yes, I agree the cool down periods
are really necessary. Our cars sat down
for at least an hour on the outside
of about 9°C at this time. Enough to
cool down (we had to warm them up on the
dyno afterwards)
>> However, I haven't really cared for
the
>> frequency and fervor with which they continually tell people
(mostly
>> newcomers) on the Team3S mailing list (and it gets repeated
here) that
>> "upgrading exhaust gives no power increase because our
dyno
>> runs say so."
Well, I tried to explain this beforehand
and I'm sure there is quite a lot
to be discussed (what I really like) But
the statement is simple true
especially in the up to 15psi boost area. Above
I'm positive that the
exhaust starts to play a more important rule as the
amount of the sucked in
air is getting increased a lot.
If you say
that this statement is wrong, then please explain why three cars
with
different exhaust haven't seen a difference in power and the one with
the
stock exhaust showed the highest figure. Please note that the three cars
have
been tested at the same dyno on the same morning with the same
temperatures,
etc.
>> If that were the case then we would never see increases in
trapspeeds
>> after upgrading exhaust, regardless of the fact that the
"1mph = 10hp"
>> dragger's rule is just an estimate.
As said
this belongs not to turbo charged engines. It would with eliminated
lag !
Also reduced weight can be counted in although this is maybe not
that
much.
>> And furthermore I am too pessimistic about the
airflow problems with
their dyno runs.
>> I am more than willing to
accept that one day they might get the airflow
issue
>> straightened
out and "prove" that a freer-flowing exhaust doesn't provide
power
gains
>> (which in itself makes no sense for a turbocharged
car)
I always thought that I'm the most sceptical one on the small blue
ball,
hehe. But as I'm skeptical and only believe in what I say and what I
get I'd
ask you for the technical background with the formulas behind your
last
sentence. As there was no real airflow issue on our dyno session (it
was
once an issue on a dyno with 33°C ambient temp.) I'm positive that
the
air-resistance will be a higher issue on the street.
With the
datalogger I can now log the detonation on the street and on the
dyno.
Therefore we'll be able to compare the data then, including
intake
temperature, timing, etc. Also I'll record boost and intake
temperature with
my own tool as well and try to bring the stuff together
later.
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:37:49 -0700
From: "Barry E. King" <beking@home.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
RE: Exhaust Upgrade = Power? (dynoing cars, extremely long)
>
>Hmmmm... I seem to recall the old HKS vehicle chart for the 91-93
3000GT
> >VR-4 going something like this:
> >
> >1991
to 93 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4/Dodge Stealth R/T Turbo
> >
>
>Stock (300 hp @ 9 psi)
> >
> >Stage 1 (323 hp @ 9.5
psi)
> >Turbo Exhaust System
> >
> >Stage 2 (337 hp @
10 psi)
> >Super Power Flow Air Filter
>
>
> Haha,
this is the known HKS joke. Why do they tell that adding an exhaust
>
increases the boost ????? Also assuming this, 1 psi gives you 37hp.
>
Therefore running 15 psi of boost will result in 185hp -> 485hp ...
yes,
> sure and I'm the King of Mars !
I am not defending in any
way the claims made by HKS, but your logic here is
assuming that the HP
increase comes from the additional boost. There is
nothing here to
suggest that at all. There is not enough information to
conclude that 1
psi = any amount of HP.
> >So 'my experience' shows that the
exhaust does indeed increase hp
> >when upgraded from stock. I can't
speak for everyone else who feels that
> >they wasted their money on
their exhausts. All I can say is that mine was
> >well worth the money
and showed an increase in performance.
>
> So how do you explain
that three cars had the very same dyno results with
> two cars had
aftermarket exhausts and one was stock besides a K&N
> and
boost
> controller (regapped plugs) ? And also note that the car with
the
> best power
> WAS THE ONE WITH STOCK EXHAUST :) Mine had the
highest torque curve due to
> the 13Gs as well as I had lower discharge
temperatures than the Stealths.
> Even more both Stealths showed the same
temps but with different exhausts.
> Therefore an aftermarket exhaust does
not help the turbos as on both cars
> they still have to do some hard
work. As the pressure difference
> between in
> front the turbo and
afterwards causes the turbine to spool, a larger
> difference makes them
more efficient. Therefore one would assume that
> reducing the
backpressure increases the efficiency. One positive
> side effect
>
is that the discharge temperature is also be lower. Unfortunately our
>
measurements did not show any difference :(
I can't recall offhand if you
did this or not, but, unless you compared the
SAME car on the SAME day with
the SAME fuel and so on, with and without the
after market exhaust, the
comparison between one car with stock exhaust and
another car with after
market exhaust is difficult to analyze. The engines
were not
established as being operationally identical. And they rarely are.
Two
engines from the same production line will more often than not
produce
significantly different output. Three enegines of different
ages driven by
three different people will be in potentially radically
different condition.
Again, there is not enough of a baseline to accept
these dyno runs as valid
comparisons. I would certainly LIKE to as
would I think many of us. But,
it simply is not conclusive.
>
So what does the cat-back exhaust do performance wise ? It's weight and
a
> better spool-up of the turbos between shifting. Therefore a
real
> gain in the
> 1/4 mile can be found, but as said, it doesn't
d give you more horses !
I can't demonstrate whether just an exhaust
adds HP or not, I would assume
it does. It definitely increases
measurable performance. When I went from
a stock setup (just some extra
boost) to one with high flow filter, exhaust
and higher boost, there was a
measurable difference on the G-Tech and the
butt dyno. Therefore there
had to be an increase in effective (useable)
HP.
Barry
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page
is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 06:56:22 -0700
From: "Bob Forrest" <bf@bobforrest.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Dyno losses... eRAM dyno #'s...
- -----Original Message-----From:
R.G. <robby@freesurf.ch>
-
----------snip-------
>>If your dyno run was accurate, that gives new
hope to us non-turbo types,
>>since the turbos have ~100% more engine
HP than base models, (320 compared
>>to 164), but only ~35% more HP to
the wheels (196 compared to 145)!? And
>we NT's have lots less
weight to lug...
>
>Ahem, there must be something wrong. I always
thought that the engine hp
was
>rated at 222hp for the NAs. If 164hp
are the wheel hp, the tranny loss may
be
>lower than on our what
results in about 260hp on our TTs.
Ahem... :-) The 164
engine HP number I gave is correct. The stock base
Stealth is 164 HP,
and the dyno says that it gets 145 HP at the wheels. The
base 3000GT
and the Stealth R/T are the ones with 222 HP. On Dave Allison's
TT, the
dyno'd HP to the wheels was 196 from his modified 337 (estimated).
Your 260
HP to the wheels is from your modified 425 HP TT, right?
Otherwise,
somebody's dyno is wrong... (Or are European HP
ratings
different?)
>>Super eRAM (which should translate to 15
to 20 HP [eRAM] and 25 to 30 HP
>>[Super eRAM] for you turbo
guys).
>
>No, the thing cannot add any ponies to a turbo car. It may
help in the
Well it certainly added ponies to the Porsche 911 and the
owner's 928. Frey
Racing is VERY respected and LOTS of racing pros
depend on their accuracy,
so I have to believe the results posted on Mark's
website. As to what it
did for my base Stealth (5 HP even in our sloppy
test!), here's Mark's
comment about the dyno charts:
"Was just looking
over the numbers that I have coordinating with the dyno
graphs, and noticed
that your time to accelerate from 60 mph to 107 was
about .2 seconds faster
with the eRAM running. this is the real
improvement as the 5 or
so hp is carried from 3000 rpm all the way to 5500.
(times were 9.5 vs
9.7seconds and they should be pretty close to your
street times as the
dyno is very close to the same loads.) In a
quartermile, the
gains would have to be another 1 tenth better as well, for
a quarter time
improvement of .3 seconds. This is very significant if you
are a
racer."
>below-boost area and during shifting but when boost is maxed
at around 2850
>the thing is more a restriction then. As the engine sucks
in more than
>700cfm at high boost I can't see the eRAM can help anything.
The limitation
>is still internal boost and our enemy detonation and
adding one or two psi
>doesn't cure any of these.
Whatever air
gets into the engine..., gets in at atmospheric pressure (and
as a result of
it); add an additional 2 psi with the Super eRAM, and you'll
see real HP
gains, just like we do when the air is colder and denser. From
what
I've seen so far, I believe the eRAM will give 4 to 6 % more HP, with
any car
(NA or turbo). I got 5 hp even though we had the thing pointing at
the
MAS honeycomb at almost 45 degrees, and gaffer taped on temporarily.
If
it can be installed in-line with the MAS, I'll bet I get close to the
full
claimed 6% gain (on my base that's 8-10 HP, and on a turbo that's 15 to
20
HP). The latest Super eRAM hasn't yet reached 2 psi in their tests,
(only a
bit over 1.5 psi), but that still would mean 12 or more HP on my
base
Stealth, and 22 or more HP on a turbo.
>Hope to see the dyno
sheet soon :)
I still don't have all my stuff hooked to this new
computer yet, and the old
one is dead today; I'll move my scanner over later,
and add the dyno results
to a full post about the eRAM test. I can't
wait for your evaluation of the
dyno
graphs...
Forrest
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web
page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:26:21 -0600
From: "Jeffrey Young" <jefyoung@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Drivetrain loss & altitude corrections
>>A 42% loss
doesn't sound right...
>It doesn't sound right to me as well ! The
loss we measured (!) was about
>28% and I already felt that this is a lot.
But it seems that this is not
>uncommon for AWD cars measured on a dyno.
Therefore the figure may be
This brings up another question. I was
at the local strip on Sunday and I
used my G-Tech to get some 'at the wheels'
HP readings for the latest rounds
of modifications. I know I had the
correct weight entered as the strip has
a scale just past the gas pumps (104
octane...the good stuff..at $4.50 per
gallon). My average over a couple
of runs was 324. If I multiply this by
the 1.28 (28% drivetrain loss),
I come up with 414.72...so far so good...Now
this drag strip (Bandemere's in
Morrison CO) is at about 5500 feet above sea
level. Over a year ago I
found a site that had the calcualtions for
correcting horsepower at higher
altitudes...it go is
Corrected HP = Actual HP * ((Altitude / 1000 *
.042)+1)
Therefore
510.52 = 414.72 * ((5500/1000 *
.042)+1)
Now this is great...except that I am running 13G turbos and they
cannot make
that kind of HP!!!
Therefore, something must be wrong
here...either the 1) G-Tech made bad
readings... 2) The drivetrain loss is
too high, 3) the altitude correction
calculation is incorrect or 4) The
altitude doesn't effect turbo cars as
much as NA's
Any and all
comments are appreciated.
Jeffrey
92 Dodge Stealth RT/Turbo
www.omega-sw.com/stealth
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:24:40 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Drivetrain loss & altitude corrections
> 510.52 = 414.72 *
((5500/1000 * .042)+1)
>
> Now this is great...except that I am
running 13G turbos and they
> cannot make that kind of
HP!!!
>
> Therefore, something must be wrong here...either the 1)
G-Tech made bad
> readings... 2) The drivetrain loss is too high, 3)
the altitude
> correction calculation is incorrect or 4) The altitude
doesn't effect
> turbo cars as much as NA's
The problem is
measuring horsepower with a GTech. It'll give you rough
ballpark
estimates, and any calculations you make from a ballpark estimate
are going
to be farther outside the original ballpark. If the GTech is in
the
ballpark, the resulting calculation is maybe still inside the city
the
ballpark resides in. The percentage of error will always increase,
not
decrease. If the GTech has a 10% margin of error (which would be a
40 HP
variance either up or down from your "reading") and you run it through
your
formula to correct for altitude then it will increase the margin of
error to
12.3%, making your final number up to 63 HP off in either direction
from a
median point. If the GTech read 10% high (very probably in a car
that rises
the front and lowers the back under hard acceleration, like ours
tend to
do), then you are looking at an actual "corrected" horsepower of 460
HP,
which seems more in line with what you may reasonably expect to see
with
13G's, lots of boost, and proper fuel tuning at sea level.
Now
since the 10% correction factor I used is just a wild-ass guess, none
of
these numbers should be relied upon until they can be compared with the
same
car, same GTech, same conditions and the car run at the track and a
dyno
within a short time of each other. That's the only way to even
attempt to
figure out what the real correction factor might be. Even
that will still
be error-prone as the GTech results aren't real
repeatable.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:20:41 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Dyno losses... eRAM dyno #'s...
>Ahem... :-) The
164 engine HP number I gave is correct. The stock base
>Stealth is
164 HP, and the dyno says that it gets 145 HP at the wheels.
The
>base
3000GT and the Stealth R/T are the ones with 222 HP.
Ah, ok SOHC and DOHC
difference :)
> On Dave Allison's TT, the dyno'd HP to the wheels was
196 from his
modified 337 (estimated).
>Your 260 HP to the wheels is
from your modified 425 HP TT, right?
>Otherwise, somebody's dyno is
wrong... (Or are European HP ratings
>different?)
My figures
where 188kW DIN on the wheels and 261.5kW on the engine. This
resulted in
353hp DIN and 401hp SAE corrected with the conversion fomula we
grabbed
together.
>Well it certainly added ponies to the Porsche 911 and the
owner's 928.
Frey
>Racing is VERY respected and LOTS of racing pros
depend on their accuracy,
>so I have to believe the results posted on
Mark's website.
And which of them are turbo cars ?
>Whatever
air gets into the engine..., gets in at atmospheric pressure (and
>as a
result of it); add an additional 2 psi with the Super eRAM, and
you'll
>see real HP gains, just like we do when the air is colder and
denser. From
>what I've seen so far, I believe the eRAM will give 4
to 6 % more HP, with
>any car (NA or turbo).
Yes, this is exactly
what the math is telling, hehe. But please note that
there are some
differences in a non-naturally aspirated engine ! Figure this
: If you have a
air dryer blows by 1 psi into another one that also blows 2
psi, how many psi
will you have at the end ? 1, 2 or 3 psi ??
>claimed 6% gain (on my
base that's 8-10 HP, and on a turbo that's 15 to 20
>HP).
So I
haven't got any answer yet on WHY a turbo engine should benefit for
this ?
And even more 15 to 20 hp ??
> The latest Super eRAM hasn't yet
reached 2 psi in their tests, (only a
>bit over 1.5 psi), but that still
would mean 12 or more HP on my base
>Stealth, and 22 or more HP on a
turbo.
The only thing what I can think of is that it helps to increase
the spool-up
time but nothing else. And this will probably result in nothign
due to the
additional draw on the alternator.
Bob, if you don't mind
call them and ask :
1. how much air do the eRAMs flow at 1 / 2 psi
2.
take the hair blower example ans ask them how the thing should add power
to a
turbo.
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:17:12 -0600
From: "Jeffrey Young" <jefyoung@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss & altitude
corrections
Matt;
> The problem is measuring horsepower
with a GTech. It'll give you rough
> ballpark estimates, and any
calculations you make from a ballpark estimate
> the ballpark, the
resulting calculation is maybe still inside the city the
> ballpark
resides in. The percentage of error will always increase, not
>
decrease. If the GTech has a 10% margin of error
According to
G-Tech the HP ratings are plus or minus 3 HP and this was
confirmed by tests
done by Super Street and Sport Compact Cars. So the
problem seems
to be in either the drive train loss or correction
for
altitude.
Jeffrey
92 Dodge Stealth RT/Turbo
www.omega-sw.com/stealth
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:19:31 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Drivetrain loss & altitude corrections
> 510.52 = 414.72 *
((5500/1000 * .042)+1)
>
> Now this is great...except that I am
running 13G turbos and they cannot
make
> that kind of
HP!!!
>
>
> Therefore, something must be wrong here...either
the 1) G-Tech made bad
> readings... 2) The drivetrain loss is too
high, 3) the altitude
correction
> calculation is incorrect or 4)
The altitude doesn't effect turbo cars as
> much as NA's
>
>
Any and all comments are appreciated.
>
(4) is true for sure,
if you can attain the same boost, the HP should be the
same. You may assume
some losses due to turbos doing more work to achieve
same
boost.
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:56:07 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Drivetrain loss & altitude corrections
> According to G-Tech the
HP ratings are plus or minus 3 HP and this was
> confirmed by tests done
by Super Street and Sport Compact Cars. So the
> problem seems
to be in either the drive train loss or correction for
>
altitude.
That doesn't match with what others have said (including one
person
recently) where there was up to a .7 second difference in 1/4 mile
time at a
dragstrip with the GTech on the same run, with readings all over
the chart
over several subsequent runs. If the 1/4 mile times are
incorrect, then the
HP readings likely are suspect as well.
How else
do you explain the horsepower readings you are seeing at that high
of an
altitude? My first thought would be measuring error. What are
your
quarter mile times and trap speeds? We can get a rough estimate of
power
from those to see if the GTech is even close or not.
-
-Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web
page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:59:49 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Drivetrain loss & altitude corrections
> (4) is true for sure, if
you can attain the same boost, the HP
> should be the same. You may assume
some losses due to turbos
> doing more work to achieve same
boost.
No, this is an assumption which is not true. My friend, John
Salmi, from
Colorado (who also races at Bandimere, CO) runs low 13's at
altitude in
Colorado and ran several mid-low 12's in Ohio at the Diamond Star
Shootout
with the same car setup. I'm pretty sure it is because of the
same reasons
that 13G's at 15 psi make more horsepower than stock turbos at
the same
boost level - efficiency.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder
VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:34:54 -0600
From: "Jeffrey Young" <jefyoung@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss & altitude
corrections
Matt;
>That doesn't match with what others have
said (including one person
>recently) where there was up to a .7 second
difference in 1/4 mile time at
a
>dragstrip with the GTech on the same
run, with readings all over the chart
>over several subsequent runs.
If the 1/4 mile times are incorrect, then
the
>HP readings likely are
suspect as well.
The G-Tech does not account for reaction time. It
starts recording as soon
as you get on the throttle. This could be the
difference in the ET
The G-Tech web site has some info about the
accuracy...
http://www.gtechpro.com/accu.html
is the address.
>How else do you explain the horsepower readings
you are seeing at that
>high
>of an altitude? My first thought
would be measuring error. What are your
>quarter mile times and trap
speeds? We can get a rough estimate of power
>from those to see if
the GTech is even close or not.
I never got a clean run without my
(*&^*#) Y-pipe popping off...usually in
3rd gear. My best run (the
pipe popped near the very end) was 13.378 @
102.91 MPH (@ 4250 lbs =
car+gas+driver). That equals 363 to 429HP,
depending on whose HP
calculator you use (Talk about descrepencies!!). The
G-Tech would
register the high HP during the 2nd gear run, since I wasn't
able to get
through third.
Jeffrey
92 RT/Turbo
www.omega-sw.com/stealth
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:06:38 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Drivetrain loss & altitude corrections
> The G-Tech does not
account for reaction time. It starts
> recording as soon as you get
on the throttle. This could
> be the difference in the
ET
Reaction time is not measured as part of your ET. ET is straight
time from
the beam at the line to the beam at the end of the
track.
> The G-Tech web site has some info about the
accuracy...
> http://www.gtechpro.com/accu.html
is the address.
I've read it. I think it is marketing crap. I
own one, and it isn't
precise as they say. Is it worth $129? I
don't think so...
> I never got a clean run without my (*&^*#)
Y-pipe popping off...usually in
> 3rd gear. My best run (the pipe
popped near the very end) was 13.378 @
> 102.91 MPH (@ 4250 lbs =
car+gas+driver). That equals 363 to 429HP,
> depending on whose HP
calculator you use (Talk about descrepencies!!).
> The G-Tech would
register the high HP during the 2nd gear run, since I
> wasn't able to get
through third.
How come your car weighs so much? That's 400 pounds
of gas and driver!
(Not that it has anything to do with what we are talking
about). I don't
know what to tell you... I'm just saying that the
GTech isn't the precision
instrument it is made out to be. For $129 you
don't get the accuracy of
something like a Vericom, and certainly not the
accuracy of a dyno. I'll
take mine along to the next Import event at
Rock Falls and see how it
matches with my timeslips, but I'm not
hopeful.
Speaking of import events, there is one coming up on August 15th
at Rock
Falls Raceway in Wisconsin, near Eau Claire. Anyone
going? I'll probably
be there...
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder
VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:13:09 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Drivetrain loss & altitude corrections
Can someone confirm
and proove the following:
At say, 5000 rpm and 15psi, an engine with 13G
turbos will deliver more
horsepower than an engine with 9Gs, everything else
being equal.
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:27:17 -0600
From: "Jeffrey Young" <jefyoung@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss & altitude
corrections
Matt;
>Reaction time is not measured as part of
your ET. ET is straight time from
>the beam at the line to the beam
at the end of the track.
Your absolutly right...(The A/C is not working
in my office and I think my
brain has melted), don't know what I was
thinking.
>I've read it. I think it is marketing crap. I
own one, and it isn't
>precise as they say. Is it worth $129?
I don't think so...
To me, its worth the $129. I basicly use mine
to see If I'm getting any
improvement in modifications that I am making or
trying to tune the
VPC...but was curious about the amount of HP I was
making.
>How come your car weighs so much? That's 400 pounds
of gas and driver!
>(Not that it has anything to do with what we are
talking about). I don't
>know what to tell you...
According
to the door panel (if my melted brain memory serves me correctly),
the car
weighs 4516 (stock) with 4 (haha) 180Lbs (HAHA) passengers.
Subtract out the
540 for the other three people, add 15 lbs for me plus 3/4
tank of gas, plus
tools in trunk and modifications.....the scale was
flicking between 4200 and
4250....don't know what to say..
Jeffrey
92 RT/Turbo
www.omega-sw.com/stealth
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:35:48 -0700
From: "Bob Forrest" <bf@bobforrest.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Dyno losses... eRAM dyno #'s...
- -----Original Message-----From:
R.G. <robby@freesurf.ch>
-
--------snip-------
>>Well it certainly added ponies to the Porsche 911
and the owner's 928.
>Frey
>>Racing is VERY respected and LOTS of
racing pros depend on their accuracy,
>>so I have to believe the
results posted on Mark's website.
>
>And which of them are turbo
cars ?
Check Mark's website www.electricsupercharger.com... a
number of the tested
cars were turbos
>>Whatever air gets
into the engine..., gets in at atmospheric pressure (and
>>as a result
of it); add an additional 2 psi with the Super eRAM,
and
you'll
>>see real HP gains, just like we do when the air is
colder and denser.
From
>>what I've seen so far, I believe the eRAM
will give 4 to 6 % more HP, with
>>any car (NA or
turbo).
>
>Yes, this is exactly what the math is telling, hehe. But
please note that
>there are some differences in a non-naturally aspirated
engine ! Figure
this
>: If you have a air dryer blows by 1 psi into
another one that also blows 2
>psi, how many psi will you have at the end
? 1, 2 or 3 psi ??
That's a good question for Mark and the eRAM
team...
- --------snip--------
>> The latest Super eRAM
hasn't yet reached 2 psi in their tests, (only a
>>bit over 1.5 psi),
but that still would mean 12 or more HP on my base
>>Stealth, and 22 or
more HP on a turbo.
>
>The only thing what I can think of is that it
helps to increase the
spool-up
>time but nothing else. And this will
probably result in nothign due to the
>additional draw on the
alternator.
>
>Bob, if you don't mind call them and ask
:
>
>1. how much air do the eRAMs flow at 1 / 2 psi
>2. take
the hair blower example ans ask them how the thing should add power
>to a
turbo.
>
>Regards,
>Roger
>93'3000GT TT
I'll
forward this to Mark, who has joined Team3S and will catch up with us
soon,
I'm sure. I agree that your questions need
answering...
Best,
Forrest
'94 Stealth NT
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:27:46 -0700
From: Chris Winkley <cwinkley@plaza.ds.adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Drivetrain loss & altitude corrections
Murat...
On
the contrary, with all other factors the same, there won't be any extra
hp
produced by 13Gs over the stock 9Bs at a given RPM and given pressure.
The
issue is whether or not the 9Bs can produce and sustain the same levels
of
boost at the higher RPMs (they can't). I think you picked your numbers as
a
hypothetical example, but 5K RPM is where 9Bs start to drop off. The
13Gs
should continue to hold 15 psi up to redline. As a result, they produce
more
HP up to redline. The 13Gs will also produce higher boost (more than 15
psi)
for longer than the 9Bs.
Proof? Well, I'd have to dig out a
textbook, perhaps someone else has one
handy (or disagrees with my
statement).
Looking forward...Chris
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Murat Okcuoglu [mailto:murat@ashacorp.com]
Sent:
Thursday, July 29, 1999 1:13 PM
To: Stealth - Team 3S
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Drivetrain loss & altitude corrections
Can someone confirm and proove
the following:
At say, 5000 rpm and 15psi, an engine with 13G turbos will
deliver more
horsepower than an engine with 9Gs, everything else being
equal.
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
------------------------------
End
of Team3S Digest V1 #243
****************************
For unsubscribe
info and FAQ, see our web page at http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm