--
From: owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
(Team3S Digest)
To: stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Team3S Digest V1 #247
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 Monday, August 2
1999 Volume 01 : Number
247
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 00:34:57 -0400
From: "Michael" <mdorsey@mindspring.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Exhaust Upgrade = Power? (pt.2)
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
>
[mailto:owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com]On
Behalf Of
> Errin Humphrey
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 1999
17:10
> To: 3/S Sirius Mailing List; R.G.
> Subject: Re: Team3S:
Exhaust Upgrade = Power? (pt.2)
>
> Turning the fan on and off told
you ~nothing~ about whether or not
> there was sufficient airflow for your
intercoolers to be
> efficiently working
> at all. Of course,
at certain highway speeds there will be
> excess airflow
> for your
intercoolers to work sufficiently, but you cannot
> simply assume
>
that the fan provided anywhere near this level, and all Supra dyno-ers
>
have reported that a fan by itself is never sufficient.
Wouldn't it
be simple enough to put a temp probe in the Y-pipe just before
the throttle
body to measure intake temps while driving and on the dyno.
The comparison
should let you know how well the fans are working.
Michael
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:17:13 +0200
From: Matthews <matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Exhaust Upgrade = Power?
Michael wrote:
>
>
Wouldn't it be simple enough to put a temp probe in the Y-pipe just
before
> the throttle body to measure intake temps while driving and on
the dyno.
> The comparison should let you know how well the fans are
working.
Which, in fact, is exactly what we did, as is described both on
both my
page and Roger's page. I've been away for the past month and
must
assume that I missed most of this discussion, but from the last
few
Emails it seems clear that the information we have out there was
not
carefully read or that it was confused by recent posts (our dyno
runs
were not performed at Digit Power, intake charge temps and AFR
were
monitored, etc.).
While everyone would agree that a ideal testing
would involve a single
car with dyno sessions between mods and sufficient
cool-down periods,
this is probably not feasible. I think we performed
our tests about as
well as could be expected and documented them as best as
we could. If
you disagree with our analyses, then that's open for
discussion - to my
knowledge there has never been such a test/comparison made
before and we
did our best to interpret the results. I hope you agree
that our
[somewhat expensive] testing benefitted the community and that
lessons
learned (and new mods/equipment) will make subsequent tests that
much
more informative.
- --
Jim Matthews - Wiesbaden,
Germany
matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de
(64 Kbps ISDN)
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews
***
3000GT-Stealth International (3Si) Member #0030 ***
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews/stealth.html
Jet
Black '94 Dodge Stealth R/T Twin-Turbo AWD AWS 6-spd
Adjustable Active
Suspension, Adjustable Exhaust System
K&N FIPK, A'PEXi Super AVC-R (1.0
bar @ 72% BADC)
A'PEXi Turbo Timer (30 sec), Blitz Blow-Off
Valve
Magnecore spark plug wires, Redline ShockProof fluids
Metal Matrix
brake pads, custom braided brake lines
Michelin Pilot XGT-Z4 245/45ZR17, Top
Speed: 168mph
G-Tech Pro: 0-60 4.79 sec, 1/4 13.16 sec @ 113.9 mph
1 Feb
99 Dyno Session: 406 SAE HP, 354 lb-ft torque
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:39:17 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Exhaust Upgrade = Power?
Thanks Jim for stepping in.
Over
the last conversation (a huge one) there were a lot interprations of
"what
you say means ...". This lead us maybe into a wrong way and reading
the
information on our homepages is very important if we want to discuss.
Errin
did this already but there are some points I have to clarify for sure
(out of
the huge post).
As Errin splitted up his messages it takes somewhat long
until I finish up
all the answers ;-)
Here a short wrap-up on my
statements we are still discussing :
- - a cat-back replacement does not
give you more peak hp nor torque
- - a cat-back may improve et's and mph due
to the different power curve and
less of weight
- - a full exhaust upgrade
will change the curves as well as will give you
increase in peak values. This
means that removing the pre-cats is what the
rest of the exhaust makes really
working.
- - on a track there are much more external variables (driver,
clutch,
aero.resist., weight, etc.) than on a dyno
- - the small fans
on a dyno are a problem on hot ambient temperatures for
sure ! With an open
hood, an ambient temp of max 9°C we are getting intake
temperatures like on
road at 20°C with closed hood (sucking warm air in).
This was told by the
dyno guy at this day and I checked this with two other
dynos in my
region.
- - 0.1 second = 10hp gain -> replacing the hood, and shaving
other weight
gives you 10hp; interesting !
I totally agree with you
guys saying that measuring three cars on a dyno is
not compareable.
Interestingly enough the cars showed the very same
characteristics in their
curve and if Mikes car had a little bit more boost
it would have shown the
very same curve as Jim's car. The difference of the
dp/cat-back then would
maybe be show a better power curve after the peak
(5500-5700)
More
precise stuff will be found in the mega-huge message tonight (I'm at
50%
right now)
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
>> Wouldn't
it be simple enough to put a temp probe in the Y-pipe just
before
>>
the throttle body to measure intake temps while driving and on the
dyno.
>> The comparison should let you know how well the fans are
working.
>
>Which, in fact, is exactly what we did, as is described
both on both my
>page and Roger's page. I've been away for the past
month and must
>assume that I missed most of this discussion, but from the
last few
>Emails it seems clear that the information we have out there was
not
>carefully read or that it was confused by recent posts (our dyno
runs
>were not performed at Digit Power, intake charge temps and AFR
were
>monitored, etc.).
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web
page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:07:35 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Exhaust Upgrade = Power? (pt.2)
>> I would really like to
hear an explanation as to how "lag" is what causes
>> 1mph to instead =
0hp, whereas with other cars (na, nos, sc) which don't
>> have lag it
takes them 10hp to achieve this. The reduced weight
>> is
certainly not enough to account for the differences.
>
>I'd also
like to know how this works.
Less backpressure causes the turbos working
better i.e. better response,
etc. This together with the less weight and a
changed power/tourque curve
might be able to give you the increase in mph and
the better et's. No higher
peak hp/torque :(
>I also disagree with
drawing any generalizations about horsepower increases
>caused by certain
modifications when the testing isn't even done on the
same
>car.
No two cars are going to dyno identically, even under the
same
>conditions.
Not identically for sure, but close
!
>I also agree that running your car on a dyno without proper
airflow
>*through* the intercoolers, (not just a fan pointing in their
general
>direction, but actually ducting air through them so the air
doesn't just go
>around the intercooler edges) is likely to cause serious
damage to your
>motor. The engine system on these cars is engineered
as a unit, designed
to
>have the intercoolers cooling the intake charge
a vast amount under the
>temperature the turbos are spewing
out.
The ambient temperatures were low enough and we compensated this
with the
open hood. This was like runnign the car on 20°C on the street with
closed
hood and hot engine.
> If you don't think the intercoolers
matter, you might as well take them
off and
>save the
weight.
Matt, I guess that you didn't meant this last statement seriously
as we are
old enough to understand what cooling mean ! It's not necessary to
bring
such things up again.
For more please check out the message I'm
gonna send tonight. Please have
some patience as writing down the arguments
not in my first language takes a
lot longer for
me:)
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web
page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:18:46 +0200
From: Matthews <matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Exhaust Upgrade = Power?
"R.G." wrote:
>
> - a
cat-back may improve et's and mph due to the different power curve and
>
less of weight
Agreed. Drag racing involves running at high-RPM the
entire time, where
a freer-flowing exhaust (ffe) enhances performance.
However, this is
apparently at the expense of torque at lower RPMs (a
characteristic
commonly attributed to N/A engine setups), where the car is
driven most
often (unless all one does with the car is race it!). This
conclusion
is based on the fact that my '94 with stock exhaust
consistently
generated torque earlier than both Roger's '93 and Mike's '95
(see dyno
comparison chart).
> - a cat-back replacement does
not give you more peak hp nor torque
>
> - a full exhaust upgrade
will change the curves as well as will give you
> increase in peak values.
This means that removing the pre-cats is what the
> rest of the exhaust
makes really working.
If exhaust is to make a difference, the entire
system from the turbos
back must be tackled. The apparent result is
that the horsepower and
torque curves will be shifted higher in the RPM
range, probably with
higher peaks. Again, this is better for drag
racing but may sacrifice
some drivability.
> - on a track there
are much more external variables (driver, clutch,
> aero.resist., weight,
etc.) than on a dyno
Exactly. I have to question anyone who claims
that track/G-Tech
results, while useful, are more reliable and/or repeatable
than dyno
test results.
> - the small fans on a dyno are a
problem on hot ambient temperatures for
> sure ! With an open hood, an
ambient temp of max 9°C we are getting intake
> temperatures like on road
at 20°C with closed hood (sucking warm air in).
Again, the intake charge
temperature was monitored and found to be in
the normal operating
range. I don't understand the intercooler
argument.
> I
totally agree with you guys saying that measuring three cars on a dyno
is
> not compareable. Interestingly enough the cars showed the very
same
> characteristics in their curve and if Mikes car had a little bit
more boost
> it would have shown the very same curve as Jim's car. The
difference of the
> dp/cat-back then would maybe be show a better power
curve after the peak
> (5500-5700)
Measuring the three cars IS
comparable. No, maybe not as good as a
single car being dynoed between
each mod and with adequate cool-down
periods, but pretty darn good.
Besides, even if a single car were
tested in this manner, it still wouldn't
be the READER'S car! Perhaps
it is more useful to a group of owners to
have tested a group of cars
afterall...
> More precise stuff
will be found in the mega-huge message tonight (I'm at
> 50% right
now)
I look forward to reading it.
The bottom line is that
most readers on this list use their car as a
daily driver and are interested
in making simple modifications that
extract more performance in various areas
without sacrificing much, if
any, performance in other areas. Many
consider spending a significant
amount of money on a freer-flowing
aftermarket exhaust system. Before
such an investment is made, I feel
that it is important to point out
that 1) a cat-back system will do little
more than make the car louder
(uh, I own a STEALTH), and 2) while improving
performance at high-RPMs,
a turbo-back exhaust upgrade may sacrifice low-end
torque. Armed with
this information, the owner is more prepared to
decide how to proceed.
In my case, I'll stick with the stock system and find
a more effective
upgrade on which to spend my money.
Besides
performance, the last thing we need to sacrifice is our
credibility.
Too many owners of N/A cars (where the difference is
apparently much greater)
have run out and purchased aftermarket exhaust
systems after being told of
the performance increases only to find that
that additional performance is
only at the upper limits of the rev-band
(where they rarely drive) while
overall drivability has suffered
significantly.
Roger and I have
provided the best interpretation we could of the dyno
results, and it is
certainly open for
discussion/refinement/criticism/etc. Whatever the
conclusion, let's be
sure it is completely clear to all. Just my
2c.
-Jim
- --
Jim Matthews - Wiesbaden, Germany
matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de
(64 Kbps ISDN)
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews
***
3000GT-Stealth International (3Si) Member #0030 ***
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews/stealth.html
Jet
Black '94 Dodge Stealth R/T Twin-Turbo AWD AWS 6-spd
Adjustable Active
Suspension, Adjustable Exhaust System
K&N FIPK, A'PEXi Super AVC-R (1.0
bar @ 72% BADC)
A'PEXi Turbo Timer (30 sec), Blitz Blow-Off
Valve
Magnecore spark plug wires, Redline ShockProof fluids
Metal Matrix
brake pads, custom braided brake lines
Michelin Pilot XGT-Z4 245/45ZR17, Top
Speed: 168mph
G-Tech Pro: 0-60 4.79 sec, 1/4 13.16 sec @ 113.9 mph
1 Feb
99 Dyno Session: 406 SAE HP, 354 lb-ft torque
For subscribe/unsubscribe info,
our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 09:05:11 -0700
From: wce@bc.sympatico.ca
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Exhaust Upgrade
Errin makes some very good points in this thread.
Debate is great. Turning up the
technical/intellectual gauge a notch has
always been one of the challenging things about
this group. This and the
gentle manlike conduct here, which is even more admirable, is
what sets
this 3S forum apart from all others of it's kind. Given this, I'd like
to
make a couple of points: different food for thought if you will.
1)
Although dynoing a 3S engine for flywheel horsepower (before and/or after mods)
and
then redynoing it in the car, are preferably the best way/s to get
accurate
representations of what is going on, it is in fact not realistic. To
expect this to
happen at any time in the remote future is prohibitive given
the coin and time involved
. Unlike Supras, these are not vehicles which have
been Factory Race Prepped or
otherwise used by Professional Teams which not
only have access to such equipment, but
which remove/alter and reinstall
engines of the same on a competitive daily basis. The
type of
information, equipment and professional expertise seen in such situations
is
not available in the 3S world. So, the European dyno results are
absolutely as good a
representation of quality information as we can expect
now, and far exceed any American
results thus far performed and availed.
Point: "If if's were camels, beggars would ride"
or if you will, "A bird in
hand is worth many in the bush".
2) Roger's first language is not
English. I doubt if it's his second or even third
language...he has
something like 6. He is also not employed by NASA, but were he
born
Stateside, perhaps he would have been. . His technical contributions to
this group are
second to non and his website has proven to be a wealth of
freely shared information for
those interested in modifying their 3S cars.
Without this generously shared information,
this group would be the less.
Factor a few more like him, out of this group, and it
would be
impoverished. Point: "Don't look a gift horse in the
mouth."
Best
Darc
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web
page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:11:00 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Stutter
just reduce the gap on plugs to 0.034"
it did the
trick for me.
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:14:45 -0700
From: "Murat Okcuoglu" <murat@ashacorp.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Stutter
Can you remeber what hose/hoses were those? maybe just
whereabouts under the
hood?
- ----- Original Message
-----
From: Gabriel Estrada <typhoonzz@earthlink.net>
To:
Brad Bedell <bbedell@austin.rr.com>; <Stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
Sent:
Sunday, August 01, 1999 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Team3S: Stutter
>
Check all of the vacuum lines. When I was having a similar problem
with
my
> VR-4, I went through and changed all of the plugs, wires, air
filter, fuel
> filter and changed the oil. It didn't make any
difference what-so-ever.
> Went through and found a vacuum line had
cracked. Replaced it with new
> silicone lines and the car runs 10x
stronger. Check out
> www.bakerprecision.com for new lines
that are much nicer than the crappy
> rubber hose you get at part
stores.
> Hope this helps with the problem.
> Gabe Estrada
>
94 Pearl Yellow 3000GT VR-4
> 92 Gmc Typhoon
>
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:25:20 -0500
From: "Gabriel Estrada" <typhoonzz@earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Stutter
The location is the Vacuum lines on the passenger
side of the car, up by the
Wshield washer tank. They make a u shape and
the break in mine was on the
underside of the line. To date (knocking
on wood) I have not had one
sputter since.
Gabe Estrada
94 Pearl Yellow
3000GT VR-4
92 Gmc Typhoon
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Murat
Okcuoglu <murat@ashacorp.com>
To: <Stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 02, 1999 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Team3S: Stutter
>
Can you remeber what hose/hoses were those? maybe just whereabouts
under
the
> hood?
>
>
>
> ----- Original
Message -----
> From: Gabriel Estrada <typhoonzz@earthlink.net>
>
To: Brad Bedell <bbedell@austin.rr.com>; <Stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 1999 10:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Team3S:
Stutter
>
>
> > Check all of the vacuum lines. When I
was having a similar problem with
> my
> > VR-4, I went through
and changed all of the plugs, wires, air filter,
fuel
> > filter and
changed the oil. It didn't make any difference what-so-ever.
> >
Went through and found a vacuum line had cracked. Replaced it with
new
> > silicone lines and the car runs 10x stronger. Check
out
> > www.bakerprecision.com for new lines
that are much nicer than the crappy
> > rubber hose you get at part
stores.
> > Hope this helps with the problem.
> > Gabe
Estrada
> > 94 Pearl Yellow 3000GT 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, 2 Aug 1999 14:29:58 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Exhaust Upgrade = Power?
> This conclusion is based on the fact that
my '94 with stock exhaust
> consistently generated torque earlier than
both Roger's '93 and
> Mike's '95 (see dyno comparison chart).
Your
car should make torque earlier than Roger's car. He has 13G turbos
and
you don't. You also have a different boost controller than both
Roger and
Mike. I'm not sure I would be willing to say that your car
generated the
torque earlier because of the exhaust when there are other
variables. There
are three different cars, in different states of tune
- you can't
realistically draw comparisons and label them as "fact".
Jim and Mike's
cars aren't even running the same boost level! The
earlier torque could
even be caused by different ECU calibrations between
years (didn't the ECU
undergo a major revision between 93-94 and again
between 94-95?). How do we
know this isn't the cause of the torque
discrepancies?
> Measuring the three cars IS comparable. No,
maybe not as good as a
> single car being dynoed between each mod and with
adequate cool-down
> periods, but pretty darn good. Besides, even if
a single car were
> tested in this manner, it still wouldn't be the
READER'S car! Perhaps
> it is more useful to a group of owners to
have tested a group of cars
> afterall...
At least with a single
car, the horsepower and torque differences can
actually be attributed to
whichever part or setting was changed. Whether
that applies the same to
other cars is questionable, however at least you
have data on what the
changes to that particular car yielded. This is the
only real way to
get baseline data that you can call a "fact". Comparing
different cars
in different states of tune doesn't yield much reliable data.
> Roger
and I have provided the best interpretation we could of the dyno
>
results, and it is certainly open for
>
discussion/refinement/criticism/etc. Whatever the conclusion, let's
be
> sure it is completely clear to all. Just my 2c.
That
sounds fair to me... I hope I'm not sounding overly negative
(although
I'm fairly certain I am). I can't understand how a blanket
statement of "a
cat-back exhaust upgrade yields no horsepower gains" can be
made from the
questionable data we have on hand. We need better data,
from one car on the
same dyno with the only change between runs being the
different exhaust.
First run stock, then put the cat-back exhaust on - run
again, then put on a
high-flow cat - run again, put on a downpipe - run
again, and then gut the
pre-cats and run again. This is the only way to
even come close to
comparable data.
I'm not saying a cat-back (or any
other exhaust upgrade) makes or doesn't
make more power - I don't have any
data to support that either way.
Conventional wisdom says that on a
turbo-powered car a better flowing
exhaust will generate more peak horsepower
than a worse flowing exhaust. If
the stock exhaust flows well enough
for the horsepower levels we are seeing,
then so be it. If it does not
flow well enough, then we will see gains with
a cat-back exhaust if the
cat-back portion of the stock exhaust is the
largest restriction.
In
order to conclusively say a specific part does or doesn't
increase
horsepower, that must be the only variable being tested. This
is how real
facts are generated.
Certainly having dyno plots available
from these three cars is a great
benefit to all of us to see some ballpark
figures of expected horsepower for
various states of tune, however drawing
conclusions by comparing the three
different cars isn't going to result in
factual data.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:42:07 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: Team3S: Test
Pipes
Where can I get a test pipe for my 3000GT? I haven't seen any
vendors
selling them and I figured it is easiest to just ask here
for
recommendations. I have what I believe is an Alamo Downpipe and a
Borla
cat-back exhaust, so I think a standard test pipe should fit this
setup.
Any ideas?
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 12:53:26 -0700
From: Ken Middaugh <Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: clutch thud
> OK .... my '93 VR-4 has got that thud noise
when you engage 1st gear. The
> car will actually move a couple of inches
when engaging it !! I think I saw
> something a little while back about an
adjustment that could be made to the
> clutch pedal (from Bill Wagner
???). Could somebody post exactly how this
> adjustment is done. My clutch
starts to bite at only an inch or two off the
> floor!!!
Some have
reported that the following clutch adjustment will help the 1st gear
engage
thud: lengthen the bolt that goes from the clutch pedal into the
clutch
vacuum assist. Use 1/2 turn increments as a little adjustment
goes a long way.
This adjustment has not eliminated the problem in my
car, I still get thud.
Thudding sometimes occurs while completely
stopped. It never occurs when I'm
rolling. I currently suspect a
faulty/leaky hose with check valve or the vacuum
booster.
While
diagnosing this problem, I noticed the check procedure in the service
manual
implies that the clutch pedal should not go all the way to the floor.
Is
this true? Mine always goes completely to the floor regardless of
where I have
the vacuum bolt adjusted.
- --
I feel like I'm
diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Ken Middaugh (858)
455-4510
General Atomics
San Diego
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our
web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:04:26 -0700
From: Ken Middaugh <Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Y-pipe joint
A while after I bought my car, I discovered that
my Y-Pipe hose was replaced
with a short section of hose. Is is fitted
over the throttle body and over the
plastic Y-pipe and held on with generic
hose clamps on both ends. I still
haven't disassembled to see how they
removed/cut the original hose.
For replacement hoses, check out http://www.turbonetics.com/, catalog,
"T",
silicon connectors. They also have some heavy duty T-bolt
clamps.
Kevin Clark wrote:
>
> > 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
-
--
I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Ken
Middaugh (858) 455-4510
General Atomics
San Diego
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:29:21 -0700
From: Chris Winkley <cwinkley@plaza.ds.adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Test Pipes
Matt...
ATR sells the test pipe and down
pipe separately (as well as a high flow
cat). However, I had to modify the
test pipe so that it mated to my GReddy
catback system. The "assumption"
seems to be that the consumer is going to
connect the ATR DP & TP to the
stock exhaust, so it reduces back to 2.5".
ATR also uses a slip fit flange
that makes it more difficult to swap out the
TP. M guess is that, if you try
to buy Alamo's TP or ATR's, you'll have to
have some welding and flange work
done. Soooo, to make a long story shorter,
got to a muffler shop with the
length, diameter, and tracing of both flanges
you need, and pay them a few
$$$ to make a test pipe.
Looking forward...Chris
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Matt Jannusch [mailto:mattj@fallon.com]
Sent: Monday,
August 02, 1999 12:42 PM
To: Team 3S Tech List
Subject: Team3S: Test
Pipes
Where can I get a test pipe for my 3000GT? I haven't seen
any vendors
selling them and I figured it is easiest to just ask here
for
recommendations. I have what I believe is an Alamo Downpipe and a
Borla
cat-back exhaust, so I think a standard test pipe should fit this
setup.
Any ideas?
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
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, 2 Aug 1999 14:31:48 -0600
From: "Palamara, Peter" <pala@gwl.com>
Subject: Team3S: More stuff
for sale :)
Well all here's some more items for sale. These are all good
and no bad
stuff I promise. Here's the list and for the stock stuff give me a
price you
want to offer for it......
1 1/2 yr. old rc550 injectors (6)
just flow tested at rc 2 months ago $400
stock turbo manifolds
price-???
rear cargo cover Grey in color $75
hallowed out exhaust housings
for front and rear turbo and stock
downpipe-price???
Well I think this
is it so far until more stuff needs to get cleared out of
my garage. Prices
are firm other than the ??? marked ones.
92 3000 GTO MMC
500 H.P. of
broken fun again :(
Plates (HIPRESR)
1-800-888-gwla x4733
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 23:11:26 +0200
From: Matthews <matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Exhaust Upgrade = Power?
Matt Jannusch wrote:
>
> > This conclusion is based on the fact that my '94 with stock
exhaust
> > consistently generated torque earlier than both Roger's '93
and
> > Mike's '95 (see dyno comparison chart).
>
> [ ...
] These are three different cars, in different states of tune -
> you
can't realistically draw comparisons and label them as "fact".
Rereading
my statement, you will see that I am stating as fact not my
conclusion, but
the dyno measurements on which my conclusion is based.
That the car with
stock exhaust consistently produced torque earlier
than the cars with
freer-flowing exhaust is fact, as this was measured
and not interpreted in
any way. Not wanting to mislead anyone in any
way, I am always
reluctant to consider any conclusion of mine as fact.
However, from the data
collected during the dyno sessions, my warning to
those considering an
aftermarket exhaust stands.
That said, you are quite right that Roger's
larger turbos could be
responsible for the descrepancy. However, it is
interesting that in all
cases, Roger's torque curve and Mike's torque curve
were virtually
identical from 1800 to 2400 RPM (the latter appears to be the
RPM at
which Mike's boost setting is attained, causing the curves to
diverge).
Such behavior, as you also pointed out, could be attributed to
the
different boost controllers, but this seems a less likely culprit
than
the exhaust since both the Blitz and the A'PEXi simply have
the
wastegates completely closed in this range (ie- they are
essentially
isolated from the equation). Also note that my torque curve
and Roger's
torque curve were practically identical from 2400 to 3600 RPM
(the
latter appears to be the RPM at which Roger's 13Gs begin making
a
difference), probably demonstrating that the different boost
controllers
acted similarly.
> At least with a single car, the
horsepower and torque differences can
> actually be attributed to
whichever part or setting was changed. Whether
> that applies the
same to other cars is questionable, however at least you
> have data on
what the changes to that particular car yielded. This is the
> only
real way to get baseline data that you can call a "fact".
Comparing
> different cars in different states of tune doesn't yield much
reliable data.
No, data is always a fact, and as we had consistent
results on the dyno,
the data posted on our web sites is reliable. But
dispensing with
semantics, I agree that someone with the time and money to
dyno test a
vehicle between mods in a controlled environment (temperature,
pressure,
etc.) could produce reliable (factual?) interpretations of
and
conclusions from the collected data for that vehicle. However,
this
does not seem to be a feasible alternative, at least for
me.
> In order to conclusively say a specific part does or doesn't
increase
> horsepower, that must be the only variable being tested.
This is how real
> facts are generated.
Note that if everyone on
the list is willing to chip in to pay for all
of the mods and dyno time, I'd
be a happy volunteer! I'd like the
Greddy (no annoying Borla resonance)
exhaust, please... ;-)
> Certainly having dyno plots
available from these three cars is a great
> benefit to all of us to see
some ballpark figures of expected horsepower for
> various states of tune,
however drawing conclusions by comparing the three
> different cars isn't
going to result in factual data.
Okay. :-)
- --
Jim
Matthews - Wiesbaden, Germany
matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de
(64 Kbps ISDN)
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews
***
3000GT-Stealth International (3Si) Member #0030 ***
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews/stealth.html
Jet
Black '94 Dodge Stealth R/T Twin-Turbo AWD AWS 6-spd
Adjustable Active
Suspension, Adjustable Exhaust System
K&N FIPK, A'PEXi Super AVC-R (1.0
bar @ 72% BADC)
A'PEXi Turbo Timer (30 sec), Blitz Blow-Off
Valve
Magnecore spark plug wires, Redline ShockProof fluids
Metal Matrix
brake pads, custom braided brake lines
Michelin Pilot XGT-Z4 245/45ZR17, Top
Speed: 168mph
G-Tech Pro: 0-60 4.79 sec, 1/4 13.16 sec @ 113.9 mph
1 Feb
99 Dyno Session: 406 SAE HP, 354 lb-ft torque
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 23:13:40 +0200
From: Matthews <matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Exhaust Upgrade
wce@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> 2) Roger's first language is not English. I doubt if it's his
second or even third
> language...he has something like 6. He
is also not employed by NASA, but were he born
> Stateside, perhaps he
would have been. . His technical contributions to this group are
> second
to non and his website has proven to be a wealth of freely shared information
for
> those interested in modifying their 3S cars. Without this generously
shared information,
> this group would be the less. Factor a few more like
him, out of this group, and it
> would be impoverished. Point:
"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
True, but probably not
necessary. No one is being offensive, and I'm
sure Roger is enjoying
the discussion as much as I (looking forward to
reading his reply later this
evening). We all have the common goal of
finding out what the hell is
going on. That our dyno results are
adequate is obviously debatable,
but it's the best data we have at this
time.
Thanx... -Jim
- --
Jim Matthews - Wiesbaden, Germany
matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de
(64 Kbps ISDN)
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews
***
3000GT-Stealth International (3Si) Member #0030 ***
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~matthews/stealth.html
Jet
Black '94 Dodge Stealth R/T Twin-Turbo AWD AWS 6-spd
Adjustable Active
Suspension, Adjustable Exhaust System
K&N FIPK, A'PEXi Super AVC-R (1.0
bar @ 72% BADC)
A'PEXi Turbo Timer (30 sec), Blitz Blow-Off
Valve
Magnecore spark plug wires, Redline ShockProof fluids
Metal Matrix
brake pads, custom braided brake lines
Michelin Pilot XGT-Z4 245/45ZR17, Top
Speed: 168mph
G-Tech Pro: 0-60 4.79 sec, 1/4 13.16 sec @ 113.9 mph
1 Feb
99 Dyno Session: 406 SAE HP, 354 lb-ft torque
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 15:13:53 -0600
From: "Jeffrey Young" <jefyoung@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Polished valve covers
Team 3S Members
I just finished
polishing the front valve cover on my car (a good picture at
http://www.omega-sw.com/stealth/fre3.jpg
..more at my web site) and I'm
really pleased with the results. Since I
have all of the different cutting,
abrasives, and polishing compounds, I
decided to see if any other lists
members would be interested in polished
valve covers. The price would be
$150 plus your old one. Since I
have an extra one, I would be able to ship
you a polished one immediately
after receiving your old one.
What I want to know is how many people
would be interested in this
proposition. It takes about a week to do
one cover (spare time in the
evenings..it currently takes about 15 hours), so
I wouldn't be able to 'mass
produce' them and I would offer a money back if
your not satisfied with it
(Just return the polished one and I'll return your
old one). I can take
Visa/MC.
Email me privately at jefyoung@ix.netcom.com if your
interested and I'll
respond back.
Thanks.....We now return you to your
normal programming..
Jeffrey
92 RT/Turbo
www.omega-sw.com/stealth
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:28:34 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mattj@fallon.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Exhaust Upgrade = Power?
> Rereading my statement, you will see that I
am stating as fact not my
> conclusion, but the dyno measurements on which
my conclusion is based.
> That the car with stock exhaust consistently
produced torque earlier
> than the cars with freer-flowing exhaust is
fact, as this was measured
> and not interpreted in any way. Not
wanting to mislead anyone in any
> way, I am always reluctant to consider
any conclusion of mine as fact.
> However, from the data collected during
the dyno sessions, my warning to
> those considering an aftermarket
exhaust stands.
Okay, I can understand this. What I would be really
interested in would be
putting Roger's cat-back exhaust on your car to see
what difference it would
make on your car, as we now have a general baseline
reading of your car's
typical horsepower and torque curves. We probably
can't duplicate the
environmental variables present on the day the initial
readings were taken,
however we can see how the cat-back or other parts would
change the basic
power characteristics of your car.
> Such
behavior, as you also pointed out, could be attributed to the
> different
boost controllers, but this seems a less likely culprit than
> the exhaust
since both the Blitz and the A'PEXi simply have the
> wastegates
completely closed in this range (ie- they are essentially
> isolated from
the equation).
I'm not sure we can say this about the Blitz and A'PEXi
controllers.
Perhaps they are completely closed, but perhaps one starts
letting some
pressure through early to lessen the chance of overshooting the
boost
target. Until a way is found to determine the exact behavior of
the
controllers, we are making a guess here. I tend to agree that the
perfect
behavior would be for the controller to not allow any airflow to
the
wastegate until the boost target is very nearly reached, or perform
some
sort of calculation to predict at what point the turbos will hit
their
target and have the wastegate opening at that point. I haven't
seen any
evidence that this is indeed what the controllers do. If I
remember
correctly (and I may not), the Blitz and A'PEXi both have some sort
of gain
and ratio settings that you need to twiddle to get certain boost
levels.
Since it is expected to have the user set these manually, I'm
thinking that
the controllers aren't intelligent enough to do what I
mentioned above.
> No, data is always a fact, and as we had consistent
results on the dyno,
> the data posted on our web sites is reliable.
But dispensing with
> semantics, I agree that someone with the time and
money to dyno test a
> vehicle between mods in a controlled environment
(temperature, pressure,
> etc.) could produce reliable (factual?)
interpretations of and
> conclusions from the collected data for that
vehicle. However, this
> does not seem to be a feasible alternative,
at least for me.
It is not feasible for me, either as I have no access to
an AWD dyno.
( If I had, I might consider using my car as a guinea pig,
or convincing my
roommate to use his VR4 instead. :-)
> Note
that if everyone on the list is willing to chip in to pay for all
> of the
mods and dyno time, I'd be a happy volunteer! I'd like the
> Greddy
(no annoying Borla resonance) exhaust, please... ;-)
Perhaps we can
reach a compromise in the data and simply run a car with the
stock exhaust
attached and then disconnect the exhaust at the main cat to
simulate what it
would be like if a "perfect" exhaust could be built with
no
restriction. Would this be a possibility? At least we could
then determine
if it is even reasonable to expect gains from an exhaust
upgrade.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:10:07 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Exhaust Upgrade = Power? (pt.2)
Hey friends,
As I'm
writing a lot of emails and other stuff in English my other language
getting
lost within the next weeks, haha.
A lot answers have already be given by
all the great people on this list.
Please forgive me if I again cover
something already discussed but I really
snipped a lot away
:)
>>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)
>
>Unfortunately for your case,
you are wrong here. If this were true,
>then I wouldn't have seen so
many Supra owners dyno their cars and
>then run their cars at the track
leading to increases in trapspeeds which
>almost ALWAYS corresponded to
the above approximation (within
>acceptable variance).
Ok, so you
are saying that a better flowing exhaust does not help to reduce
the typicaI
turbo-lag. I agree with such a approximation if it is dyno
proven for sure
:)
>need for ~proper~ dynoing procedures as well the importance
of
>getting a second "opinion" (i.e. don't just keep going to the same
dyno).
Please note that my dyno sheets are comming from 3 different
dynos. The one
from Digit Power is the one that showed way to high figures
and is known as
not accurate. This is because I do not refer to these
measurements again.
>I still have yet to hear an adequate response
which explains why our
>trapspeeds would increase with only exhaust mods.
It is unfortunate
>that you have not made any runs at the track, and this
seems to be
>the dividing line between us.
Yes, this is a big
disadvantage by me ! I only did several G-Tech runs and
I'm a bad starter,
bad shifter and so on. This is maybe also why I feel the
more lag on a 13G
equipped car against a 9B during fast accelleration. But
the
comparison
was also influenced by the different trannies (5 and 6
speed)
>>However, when I installed my Borla exhuast, I went from
consistent
>>13.4's at 101mph to consistant 13.1's at 103mph.
Statistically, that
>>would show a gain over 20hp on my
car..
Interestinlgy for sure and I do not say that the gain is only
comming from
the less weight here. He therefore made the runs on the same day
with the
stock and with the Borla exhaust ? This is exactly what Barry King
correctly
said : Comparisons should be made with the same ambient, and the
best would
be on the same day without and with the mod.
As I don't
know a lot about drag racing, I wonder how much the air (I mean
the
resistance), cool-downs, track differencies, clutch, driver (!) do play
in
the results of et's and trap speeds. Isn't it true that these variables
are
more eliminated on a dyno ? I really think so !
>So Mike gains 2mph in
the 1/4 mile after only adding a Borla. (I got
>about 3-4mph after
doing full exhaust/dp/precats). Now, your opinion
>that the above
dragger's approximation is inapplicable to turbocharged
>cars says the
following: Mike's gain of ~2mph does NOT really correspond
>to a
gain of 20hp but rather some number far less, say 2hp (since you
>are
always claiming "NO GAINS" based on your dyno figures).
Yes, I'd say that
replacing the stock exhaust helps to reduce trap speed and
et's. But I'd also
say that only acat-back does not give you any pony. Each
car is different and
therefore I agree that we'd say due to the better
exhaust flow the turbos are
able to hold boost longer and therefore the
power curve falls down at
somewhat higher rpm than with stock. This will
result in better trap speed
and better torque curve over the rpm but I'm
pretty sure that there will not
be any higher peak hp or tourqe. What do you
think ?
Another stupid
question from a non-drag-racing guy ;-) If I replace the hood
with a
lighweight one, remove any weight as possible (just eating yoghurt)
and I'll
gain 2/10th and 2 mph in the 1/4 does this also correspond to 15hp
power gain
? Maybe I'm really missing something here.
> You say that it is
because turbo cars have "lag on the system and we
> cannot eliminate
it." Huh? That goes entirely against your position.
No, to be
honest I think not. I agree if we say that we are able to keep
boost at 17psi
from 0 - 1/4 mile without a drop during shifting. I was not
yet able to do
this (see description above) and have always seen a drop
during shifting. As
soon a some load is removed from the car, i.e. shifting
to next gear, boost
drops. Do you agree ?
Please understand that I can't fully argue due to
the lack on the language
and a lot of what you've wrote about my position is
not clear to me. Anyway,
my position is still this :
A car may gain in
trap speeds and et's with a cat-back system but you'll not
get higher rpm and
trq figures. The whole power and torque curve may be
different and this can
lead in higher upper rpm power figures (later boost
drop
down) but lower
figures in the coasting area.
I never said, and will never say, that you
will not see a better trap speed
when the dyno showed a 10hp increase. I'm
sure you'll then shave some time
and increase speed. No discussion on that.
But again, with a lighter car
you'll also gain some speed and et's but no hp
(or I'm totally off and I
keep my mouth shot)
>So your explanation
that "lag" is the reason why exhaust mods add no
>hp, or the auxiliary
assumption that lag is a problem on the dyno but less
>problematic in the
real world, does not help your case. It hurts it.
Lag is not a
problem on the dyno at all. The boost is steady from about
2700rpm to 5500
where it then starts to fall off. No shifting or anything
else on the dyno. I
said that replacing the "whole" exhaust helps to reduce
backpressure that
finally increases the pressure difference from in-front
and after the turbo.
This is what helps the turbos to spool better, i.e.
more freely and finally
results in less turbo lag/spool up.
>just tells the following:
*That in the ~real-world~ our cars are making
>much more power, and
exhaust mods are able to bring about net gains.
I fully understand your
point here and I also agree with the fact that the
intercoolers are not able
to work that efficient on a dyno compared to the
car running on the street.
This results in less dense air stealing power. As
we open the hood on the
dyno we try to compensate this and the measured
intake temperatures are about
the same (in the y-pipe). If' I'd then put
some ice onto the ICs I'd simulate
much better than street conditions and
therefore would see more gain. And if
the same ambient is then given on the
track I'm sure one will see better
times and speeds as well.
>>I do not like if someone just says
"exhaust". This because we have :
>>- pre-cats
>>-
downpipe
>>- main cat
>>- cat-back (piping,
muffler)
>Fine. We'll just let "exhaust" mean the whole deal,
all of the above. I
>haveno problem with that, especially since you and
Mike both had
>the whole works for your dyno tests.
No, we both had
the pre-cats still installed as well as the restriction in
the Borla where
it's piping starts.
In my point of view the precats are the biggest
restriction in the design
besides the dp. As you have been on the Supra list
you exaclty know that
replacing the dp with the restrictive pre-cat really
gives more power.
>On different cars, and that is a fact! :)
Roger, you made dyno runs with
>your car and you ~didn't even have proper
tires on the car~! You had
>snow tires which were melting on the
rollers.
Yes, I totally agree with you and they really started to stink
on the 4
rollers. Although I do have high speed rated Continentals (made for
Porsche)
and they didn't slipped at all then. They are rated to 210km/h and
this was
enough for the dyno test. Unfortunately I had not the chance to play
with
the AFC to make the mixture even leaner due to overheating the
tires.
> There are a tons of other
>factors which you did not
address in your comparisons. For instance,
>engine compression
tests, miles on the cars, age of spark plugs, Mike
>was on stock BPV, most
recent tuneup, Jim's is '94 wheares Mike's
>is '95 (w/ OBDII), and the
list goes on. Again, you cannot take a test
>like this and make
~universal~ inferences about ALL 3000GT's.
We made a comparison of three
cars but IMHO, a test on the dyno
removes some variables that are counting on
the track (weight, drivers
experience, etc.... see above)
>>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.
>
>Roger, with all due respect, you are so wrong here
that I am almost at
>a loss for words.
Well, you found a lot, hehe
;-))
>What you are essentially saying is that since there is
>no
air-resistance the car will not have to work as hard, and thus there
is
>no need to worry about your car's airflow needs. If the dyno
technician
>fed you this B.S. I would personally never show my face there
again.
The car works as hard as it does on the street (load is given by
the
e-motors on the rolls). Please, understand that some of us
already
know what they are doing, hehe.
>Your car will make almost
no hp if your wheels are lifted off of the
>ground, just as it takes very
little hp to maintain constant highway
>speeds.
Yes, this is
Kindergarten stuff, so no explanation necessary !
> Now, just because
the dyno rollers don't (as far
>as I know) attempt to emulate the
additional aerodynamic resistance
>does NOT mean that its airflow
requirements are somehow reduced
>as a result of the decreased
load.
No the rollers do not emulate the aerod. resistance but put the car
onto
full load. The air the engine needs is sucked in and is not a problem.
The
air needed for cooling is not provided, agreed. I already gave my
statements
on how to compensate for this. Or dyno-sessions at 9°C was
comparable
to 20°C on the street.
>Think of it this way: What
would you rather do? Run 10 miles up a
>hill in 15°C weather with
plenty of cool water to drink OR run 10 miles
>on a treadmill in a 35°C
room with only an occasional mist of warm
>water sprayed on your
face? Maybe neither sound very appealing :)
A good comparison, I
like it, hehe. On our dyno day this was like :
Running 10 mls in 20°C with
plenty of hot air compared to the treadmill
in a 9°C room with open window
with less hot air to breath.
>You need intake air temp
measurements
>to address this issue, not oil and water temps, and they
should be compared
>to temps of when the car is on the road, not to the
temps of other cars
>that are in the shop. Also, it seems
presumptuous to put so much faith in
the
>accuracy of measurements made
by just one instrument, and then make
>such universal statements as you
have.
Interestingly, the air temperatures measured in the y-pipe where
noticeable
lower on my car compared to the Stealths. The only theroy on this
is that
the 13Gs are more efficient and have less discharge temperatures.
The
difference I measured lately were in the 5-10°C on 20°C days. I will
have
more adequate mesures soon when the WI will be tuned
in.
>>Another thing about the dangers of overheating on the dyno
(and whether
>there is truly adequate airflow). After your engine
blew while on the
>dyno,you posted the following under the heading "Dyno
Session 2 ...
>problems !":
>
>>I currently don't know what
the problem is and I'm also not sure about the
>>theory. Anybody has
another idea or already runned into the same problems?
>>BTW, oil temp
was max. 208.4°F, water temp ok and oil pressure good
>>(was somewhat
high at the beginning of this week)
>
>Just something to think
about.... Even though the damage might have
>started on the highway,
your engine was running until you put it on the
>dyno.
Well, today
I know what the problems are. And no, the engine was already
damaged before
this dyno session :( The problem got even worse the more
miles I made (the
oil steam became bigger at the BOV)
>Of course, but you haven't
addressed the intercooler issue. On many
>cars which add aftermarket
turbos/SC I often hear different psi limits
>past which an intercooler is
a necessity to avoid engine damage. It is
>seldom above 10psi, and
yet there you guys were at Digit Power with
>your cars on the dyno running
0.9-1.0+ bar with the possibility that there
>was ~not~ sufficient airflow
to ~both~ of your intercoolers (the fan may
>not have been large enough,
and you did not ice them) that you may as
>well have NOT had
intercoolers. That is a ~bad~ thing, and I have
>continued to remind
you (and Dave, Mikael) about it for your own good.
>I feel really bad when
I hear about another blown engine or lousy dyno
>results (esp. like Mikael
who did no icing procedures).
Again, ambient was on low temps and on
Mikaels dyno even lower !
Knock started around 1.0 bars and no, we did not
went to find where the fuel
cut-off is. I already made this experience and I
don't want to spend the
money again. We used the A/F snorcel in the exhaust,
the oil temp meter in
the pan (if it holds well, hehe), temp sensor in the
y-pipe and slightly
increased boost until we saw that the power is going down
(due to the timing
retarded). We then put boost back a little and the power
came back. This was
pretty well done on Jims car !
>>>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.
>
>Have you yet
confirmed that Euro-VR4's have larger stock injectors and
>fuel pump to be
properly matched to the 13G's? Otherwise, you can't
>use this to
discount detonation on the dyno.
No, my car only has 13G as the
differences. But as said the 13G has it's
different "island" in the flow
characteristic and it is maybe very different
compared to the 9B. With stock
bosot settings my benefit is that I can run a
long time on the autobahn with
less discharge temperature than an imported
Stealth. My disadvantage is
slightly more lag.
>What about the possibility that your older dyno
runs (esp. at high boost)
>started the damage, your Autobahn runs
exacerbated it, and your next
>dyno runs (Session 2) were the final blow
to your engine?
I started to notice the white oil steam comming out under
the hood as I
shifted to 5th at 240km/h. At this time I ran 1.25 bars of
boost. Just below
the fuel-cut. I then went to the dyno and and wanted to see
the real
figures. But the dyno showed that at 1.05bars the timing got
retarded. This
was the last time I runned more than 1.1bars of
boost.
>>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 in
principle you realize why ff-exhaust should make a difference in
>power,
but your dyno measurements did not confirm this. The whole time
>I
have been trying to remind you of airflow, cooling, detonation issues
>as
well as the danger of making too many generalizations from only a
>couple
cars with too many variables present.
Forget the cooling stuff as it
would pay a major rule in the hot days we
have now but then the ambient was
an equivalent to 20°C and proper cooling.
Also understand that we have not
had the pre-cuts gutted and still had a
small restriction in the Borla
piping.
>>With the datalogger I can now log the detonation on the
street and on the
>>dyno.
>Sounds great! I'm sure this
will shed MUCH light on the issue. Even
>with the whole exhaust
issue aside (and if further tests show I am wrong),
>I just really want to
encourage you and other dynoers to really go the
>extra mile (w/ icing
techniques, etc.) when you dyno your cars. Putting
>your car on the
dyno is, in my opinion, on of the harshest things you can
>put your car
through. I will truly feel bad if you or anyone else blows
>an
engine again.
Yeah, I totally agree with you but the safety is that
you can lift off the
gas when you see that the power curve is falling where
it should still rise.
This is the great thing on the dyno as you can start
with 0.8bars and
increase boost unti lyou are on the limit.
>It has
been a pleasure discussing this with you. :)
And with all the
others :) Just to bad we have a time delay ;-)
A short sidenote: I made
my first runs today with the datalogger and I found
that knock is starting
around 5450 with about 15psi of boost. Intake temp
was over 100°F (MAS
sensor) but I was not able to measure the temp in the
y-pipe (please someone
tell me where the probe got lost in my garage) To
this point this is exactly
the same I have found on the dyno on different
temperatures. Timing got
reatrded once but was not on another knock
situation as the amount was maybe
not enough for the ECU. This is why I say
that 15psi is safe for a stock car
as this is at the edge with some small
room. 16 psi will be on the edge and
with a higher ambient you'll be on the
dark side.
Errin et all, I
think saying "an aftermarket exhaust does not give you
anything" is wrong. We
have to be more precisely :
1. Only an aftermarket cat-back may help you
to gain in et's and mph due to
less weight and a better power curve in the
upper region. But no increase in
peak hp / trq will be found and you'd
probably lose some low-end power.
2. The same belongs to a dp and
removing the main cat.
3. Both above mentioned parts will start to show
their ability to make power
with the pre-cats removed. Then the music starts
to play and the real gain
will be visible on the road, track and
dyno.
What do you think, guys ?
Take care and ... don't drive fast
.. fly on a low altitude :)
Roger, Chocolate-Guy
93'3000GT TT
(ERL-WI)
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:41:12 -0500
From: "Oskar" <swede@pclink.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Exhaust Upgrade = Power?
Hi all,
here's my personal experience
with a 1995 R/T TT, 33k miles. NGKs gapped at
.037, Magnecore 8.5mm
wires, K&N fipk, Apex~i SAVC R stock DP and stock
cat-back. (and Blitz
dual turbo timer for measuring peak boost)
After gutting the pre-cats and
installing a test-pipe my butt-dyno
definitely noticed faster spool-up of the
turbos. My boost controller was
set at 1.0 kg/cm2 with a 70% BADC
setting (Boost Actuator Duty Cycle). With
this setting my peak boost
would normally go as high as 1.1 kg/cm2. After
the gutting procedure
the boost peaks were higher, cannot recall exactly
what, but enough to be
concerned. I had to reduce the BADC to 62% to keep
the boost peaks to
1.1 kg/cm2. This was during "normal driving", which in
this case means
varied speed driving on freeways. I was not doing
full-out
accelerations like at the drag track.
My non-scientific
conclusion is that eliminating all three cats resulted in
improved spool-up
and improved acceleration.
Oskar
'95 R/T TT
12.67@107.3 w/ above mods + HKS BOV
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 19:09:58 -0700
From: Bruce Body <bbody@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: clutch thud
I too have the thud and haven't had time to do a self
diagnosis so I
took it to my dealer. They state my slave cylinder is leaking.
I have
one on order and haven't replaced it yet. They told me the clutch is
non
adjustable and that has me feeling a little uneasy because I know
the
service manual has an adjustment procedure. Bottom line for me is
$180
USD and they'll fix my problem (I do have brake fluid type leakage on
my
tranny and the floor). I'll post my results.
Bruce
3Si
#0243
Ken Middaugh wrote:
>
> > OK .... my '93 VR-4 has
got that thud noise when you engage 1st gear. The
> > car will actually
move a couple of inches when engaging it !! I think I saw
> > something
a little while back about an adjustment that could be made to the
> >
clutch pedal (from Bill Wagner ???). Could somebody post exactly how
this
> > adjustment is done. My clutch starts to bite at only an inch
or two off the
> > floor!!!
>
> Some have reported that
the following clutch adjustment will help the 1st gear
> engage
thud: lengthen the bolt that goes from the clutch pedal into the
clutch
> vacuum assist. Use 1/2 turn increments as a little
adjustment goes a long way.
>
> This adjustment has not eliminated
the problem in my car, I still get thud.
> Thudding sometimes occurs while
completely stopped. It never occurs when I'm
> rolling. I
currently suspect a faulty/leaky hose with check valve or the vacuum
>
booster.
>
> While diagnosing this problem, I noticed the check
procedure in the service
> manual implies that the clutch pedal should not
go all the way to the floor. Is
> this true? Mine always goes
completely to the floor regardless of where I have
> the vacuum bolt
adjusted.
>
> --
> I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a
parallel universe.
>
> Ken
Middaugh (858)
455-4510
> General Atomics
> San Diego
> 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, 2 Aug 1999 22:02:41 -0700
From: "Jim Berry" <fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Team3S: high
tech coatings
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
-
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEDD32.BDE29900
Content-Type:
text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
For our more affluent members with an unlimited budget ----
rotor/caliper
and header coatings. plus just about any other engine part you
might want
to protect.
Jim Berry
http://www.swaintech.com/index.shtml
-
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEDD32.BDE29900
Content-Type:
application/octet-stream;
name="Swain Technology, Inc.
Coatings.url"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition:
attachment;
filename="Swain Technology, Inc.
Coatings.url"
[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.swaintech.com/index.shtml
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.swaintech.com/index.shtml
Modified=00AB25F76CDDBE01CF
-
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEDD32.BDE29900--
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
End
of Team3S Digest V1 #247
****************************
For unsubscribe
info and FAQ, see our web page at http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm