--
From: owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
(Team3S Digest)
To: stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Team3S Digest V1 #288
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,
September 20 1999 Volume 01 : Number
288
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:35:37 -0500
From: "Brad Bedell" <bbedell@austin.rr.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Engine replacement
I have to be the first to say:
have you even learned where the hood latch
is?
This sounds like a
smart ass remark, but think about the question you asked.
If 6 cylinders
barely fits in the cars, how the hell would 4 more cylinders
fit?
This
idea would require you changing it to RWD, lengthening the car about
18"
(hood area) The whole project should cost in the
neighborhood of
75-100k if done properly.
Brad
Check out my
home page: http://home.austin.rr.com/overboost/
E-Mail:
bbedell@austin.rr.com ICQ#
3612682
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
[mailto:owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com]On
Behalf Of Rice-Burner
Crusher
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 8:27
PM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Team3S: Engine replacement
I have a 93 Stealth ES. Wanting more
power(don't you love speed) I had
thought about a putting in aftermarket
turbos, but everyone says, just go
buy a VR4 (or TT). Well, has anyone
ever thought about putting in a V10
Viper engine in our cars? How
complicated would that be? I saw a Jeep
Wrangler had one in it in a
past 4x4 magazine issue.
Is it possible, provided you can find
one?
______________________________________________________
Get
Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
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:
Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:18:33 -0400
From: "Gil Gomes" <gil@warpedweb.com>
Subject: Team3S:
NGK Plugs
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
-
------=_NextPart_000_01F4_01BF02E4.874665C0
Content-Type:
text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Does anyone know the part number
for
NGK Platinum plugs that would fit a '95
3KGT (DOHC?) And the
gap?
Thanx....
- -Gil
-
------=_NextPart_000_01F4_01BF02E4.874665C0
Content-Type:
text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3
HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1
=
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML
4.72.3612.1706"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY
bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000
size=3D2> <FONT
=
color=3D#000000>Does=20
anyone know the part number
for</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000
size=3D2><FONT color=3D#000000>NGK Platinum =
plugs that=20
would
fit a '95</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
color=3D#000000 size=3D2><FONT color=3D#000000>3KGT (DOHC?) =
And
the=20
gap?</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
color=3D#000000 size=3D2><FONT
=
color=3D#000000></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT
color=3D#000000
size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#000000>Thanx....</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
color=3D#000000
size=3D2><FONT=20
color=3D#000000>-Gil</FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-
------=_NextPart_000_01F4_01BF02E4.874665C0--
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:33:57 CDT
From: "Curt Gendron" <curt_gendron@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Lowering springs for 96 RTTT
The 95 VR4s with the manual
sunroofs and ECS can not have the Eibachs, RSR
or Intrax lowering springs
put on them due to the fact that there is an
extra support bracket in the
rear strut area and the ECS struts are slightly
larger than the non-ECS
struts. If you don't have the manual sunroof or you
don't have ECS on
your 95 VR4, you are fine. I think the ground control
springs will fit
though. This is probably your only option for a 95 VR4.
(I don't
say 95 R/T TT, because they don't have ECS)
This topic was recently
hashed out on the starnet list. Believe it or not,
there are a few
good topics on that list. hehe. Here is what Mike Davis
said:
From: Mike Davis <midavis@spf.fairchildsemi.com>
To:
stealth@starnet.net
Subject: Re:
lowering 3kgt with ECS
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:42:16 -0400
Well, I
guess I'll play the newbie part to the hilt, so here I go:
I just picked up a
'95 VR-4 (Title and VIN identify it as '95).
I DO NOT have ECS. I do,
on the other hand, have a POWER sunroof
(solid panel, no glass). I
haven't had time to check the factory
manuals yet, so I don't know how they
deal with the various options.
I do seem to remember a bit about the three
different roofs ( solid,
lift-off, and power). I forgot to check for
info on the Spyder.
But here's the conventional wisdom: if you have a '95
with the lift-off
roof (early '95), you CANNOT use many of the commercially
available
lowering kits. There is supposedly an additional
reinforcement bar
in that area that interferes with the spring/perch (?
somebody help
my memory on this one). I don't know what the story is
for mine or
for the '96's (none of which were available with the ECS) as far
as
lowering kits are concerned. Also, you may want to verify that
AWD
part of the suspension manual. I'm 99% certain they have
different
spring rates to deal with the increased vehicle weight (but I
haven't
checked my manuals yet to be sure.
Mike Davis
'95 (1/2)
VR-4
>From: "CEskelsen" <cesk@redrock.net>
>To: "3000 list"
<stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
>Subject:
Team3S: Lowering springs for 96 RTTT
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:26:54
-0600
>
>My car is near 60,000 miles and I want to replace the stock
struts and
>springs, hopefully lowering it in the process (3-4" wheel
well gap). On
>most web sites, the kits say 95>w/o
sunroof. Any ideas on whether the car
>has a sunroof has anything
to do with dropping it an inch or
two?
>
>Thanks,
>Cory
______________________________________________________
Get
Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:49:22 CDT
From: "Curt Gendron" <curt_gendron@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: More water injection fun
Hey everyone,
I do have to
correct one thing from my previous post. My Stealth DOES hit
fuel cut
at about 1.50 kg/cm2 with the water injection. I've since turned
down
the Blitz DSBC.
I went to Rock Falls Raceway for some drag runs on
Saturday. I noticed that
the 9B turbos would not boost past
1.31. Most of my runs only saw a peak
boost of 1.21. This kind
of makes the 1g DSM BOV useless for drag runs.
But on the street,
where you can punch it at low RPMs and let the turbos
spool up, the DSM BOV
holds much better than stock.
My best quarter mile run was 13.09 @103.47
mph. I was hoping for 12s. But
still not bad for pump 92 octane
gas, 9B turbos and a stock fuel system. :)
Roger, based on the
testing John and I performed earlier, I still believe
1.35 to 1.40 is still
a safe boosting range with water injection and a stock
fuel system.
From 1.40 to 1.45 is questionable and probably getting a large
knock sum and
retard timing. And fuel cut is going to happen in the 1.45 to
1.50
range. I've set my limiter to 1.35 for now.
Thats all for
now,
Curt,
Minnesota 3/S racer,
http://www.mn3s.org
______________________________________________________
Get
Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:51:31 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@swissonline.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: More water injection fun
Hey Curt,
Thanks for the update
:)
> I do have to correct one thing from my previous post. My
Stealth DOES hit
> fuel cut at about 1.50 kg/cm2 with the water
injection. I've since turned
> down the Blitz DSBC.
Do you
know the cause for the fuel cut ? Is it knock ?
> I went to Rock
Falls Raceway for some drag runs on Saturday. I noticed that
> the
9B turbos would not boost past 1.31. Most of my runs only saw a
peak
> boost of 1.21.
Any idea about the contignous bosot level
after the peak ?
> My best quarter mile run was 13.09 @103.47
mph. I was hoping for 12s. But
> still not bad for pump 92
octane gas, 9B turbos and a stock fuel system. :)
To be honest,
with 1.3 kg/cm2 you have to run into the 12s for sure ? Are you
sure not
having a lot retard that steals power away ? Also you know too much
water may
degrade the efficiency in the chamber and steals power away too. The
G-Tech
showed 13.15 with 1.1 kg/cm2 and I'd say this is 0.1 too optimistic. But
with
1.3 and no retard you will definitively see 12s'
> Roger, based on the
testing John and I performed earlier, I still believe
> 1.35 to 1.40 is
still a safe boosting range with water injection and a stock
> fuel
system. From 1.40 to 1.45 is questionable and probably getting a
large
> knock sum and retard timing. And fuel cut is going to happen
in the 1.45 to
> 1.50 range. I've set my limiter to 1.35 for
now.
I'm going step by step and slowly increase the size of the nozzles
and fiddle
around with the 3D MAP. I'm now bosoting up to 1.15 and knock
start to appear at
4800 now. No timing retard so far but we'll see
:)
Later
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info,
our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:13:39 -0400
From: "Michael D. Romano" <mdr-nhl@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Engine replacement
Besides the fact that is hard enough
getting traction in our FWD cars with
just the NA DOHC...I can't imagine even
getting the car off the line with
hundreds of more HP.
- -Mike
'93
Stealth ES
>
> I have to be the first to say: have
you even learned where the
> hood latch
> is?
>
> This
sounds like a smart ass remark, but think about the question
> you
asked.
> If 6 cylinders barely fits in the cars, how the hell would 4
more
> cylinders
> fit?
>
> This idea would require you
changing it to RWD, lengthening the car about
> 18" (hood
area) The whole project should cost in the neighborhood
of
> 75-100k if done properly.
>
>
> Brad
> Check
out my home page: http://home.austin.rr.com/overboost/
>
E-Mail: bbedell@austin.rr.com
ICQ# 3612682
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
>
[mailto:owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com]On
Behalf Of Rice-Burner
> Crusher
> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999
8:27 PM
> To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
>
Subject: Team3S: Engine replacement
>
> I have a 93 Stealth
ES. Wanting more power(don't you love speed) I had
> thought about a
putting in aftermarket turbos, but everyone says, just go
> buy a VR4 (or
TT). Well, has anyone ever thought about putting in a V10
> Viper
engine in our cars? How complicated would that be? I saw a
Jeep
> Wrangler had one in it in a past 4x4 magazine issue.
> Is it
possible, provided you can find one?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our
web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:50:32 -0500
From: "Basol, John" <jbasol@Carlson.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: More water injection fun
One thing Curt doesn't mention here is
the answering machine message he got
from me last night with regards to the
safety of our "stock fuel system".
In the last couple of weeks I started to
notice a missing, like a plug
didn't fire, when I floor the gas. It
doesn't matter what the boost level
is at, or even if there is boost present
at all. I've been thinking that it
is probably the junk ignition system
we have, but last night I started to
open my eyes a bit, and look at what the
car was telling me. Every time
this "missing" condition occurs the a/f
gauge drops from about full rich to
stoichiometric. It is a very quick
reaction, and it back to full rich as
soon as the "miss" is over. My
thought...failing fuel injector(s). My
thought on how they
failed...being forced to run full open for way too long.
It seems there is a
bit of Irony involved here. I have done everything I
can to maximize
the cars stock setup, and in doing so I pushed it so hard it
failed anyway,
requiring replacement.
All in all the moral of this story is, it seems we
are going to have to be
more conservative about boost levels after
all.
(Curt, turn the damn thing down, before you break
something!!!) :-)
John Basol
'95
RT/TT
-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Gendron [SMTP:curt_gendron@hotmail.com]
Sent:
Sunday, September 19, 1999 11:49 PM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject:
Re: Team3S: More water injection fun
Hey everyone,
I do have to
correct one thing from my previous post. My Stealth
DOES hit
fuel
cut at about 1.50 kg/cm2 with the water injection. I've since
turned
down the Blitz DSBC.
I went to Rock Falls Raceway for some drag runs
on Saturday. I
noticed that
the 9B turbos would not boost past
1.31. Most of my runs only saw a
peak
boost of 1.21. This
kind of makes the 1g DSM BOV useless for drag
runs.
But on the
street, where you can punch it at low RPMs and let the
turbos
spool up,
the DSM BOV holds much better than stock.
My best quarter mile run was
13.09 @103.47 mph. I was hoping for
12s. But
still not bad
for pump 92 octane gas, 9B turbos and a stock fuel
system.
:)
Roger, based on the testing John and I performed earlier, I
still
believe
1.35 to 1.40 is still a safe boosting range with water
injection and
a stock
fuel system. From 1.40 to 1.45 is
questionable and probably getting
a large
knock sum and retard
timing. And fuel cut is going to happen in the
1.45 to
1.50
range. I've set my limiter to 1.35 for now.
Thats all for
now,
Curt,
Minnesota 3/S racer,
http://www.mn3s.org
______________________________________________________
Get
Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
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, 20 Sep 1999 09:23:30 -0500
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: More water injection fun
> > I do have to correct one thing
from my previous post. My
> > Stealth DOES hit fuel cut at about
1.50 kg/cm2 with the
> > water injection.
> > I've
since turned down the Blitz DSBC.
> Do you know the cause for the fuel
cut ? Is it knock ?
At this high of boost, the trigger is likely similar
to the DSM cars where
the ECU runs out of map area and triggers fuel cut as a
failsafe measure --
the ECU assumes that the wastegates have malfunctioned
and tries to make the
car misbehave badly enough to get you to bring it in to
the dealer.
> > I went to Rock Falls Raceway for some drag
runs on
> > Saturday. I noticed that the 9B turbos would
not
> > boost past 1.31. Most of my runs only saw a peak
>
> boost of 1.21.
I get fuel cut around the 1.25-1.30 area. One
of the outer honeycombs in my
MAS was damaged by the previous owner, so I
think my car is running
extra-rich because of it and is seeing more airflow
than is actually
occuring. I'm going to try to back out the bypass
screw to compensate for
the restricted airflow.
Has anyone removed the
honeycomb from the outer air passage? What were the
results? Is
drivability okay? Mine isn't totally blocked off, but the
outer edges
of the fins are all kinked up and restrict about 20% of the
passage
area.
> > My best quarter mile run was 13.09 @103.47 mph. I
was
> > hoping for 12s. But still not bad for pump 92
octane
> > gas, 9B turbos and a stock fuel system.
:)
Curt, you really oughtta run race fuel at the dragstrip. At
least the 100
octane unleaded if you are going to crank the boost up.
I'd hate to see you
blow your motor on something so preventable.
>
To be honest, with 1.3 kg/cm2 you have to run into the 12s
> for sure ?
Are you sure not having a lot retard that
> steals power away ? Also you
know too much water may
> degrade the efficiency in the chamber and steals
power
> away too. The G-Tech showed 13.15 with 1.1 kg/cm2 and I'd
>
say this is 0.1 too optimistic. But with 1.3 and no
> retard you will
definitively see 12s'
But with the 9B turbos you need to shift earlier to
keep the boost up and
stay in the meat of the torque curve. Peak
horsepower isn't improved
dramatically since the turbos can't push much more
than 1.0 bar at redline.
There does seem to be a drastic torque increase
between 3000-5000 RPM
though, where the turbos can provide the airflow asked
for.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info,
our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:16:38 -0700
From: "Bob Forrest" <bf@bobforrest.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: More water injection fun
- -----Original Message-----From: Matt
Jannusch <MAJ@bigcharts.com>
-
------snip----------
>I get fuel cut around the 1.25-1.30 area. One
of the outer
honeycombs in my
>MAS was damaged by the previous owner,
so I think my car is running
>extra-rich because of it and is seeing more
airflow than is
actually
>occuring. I'm going to try to back out
the bypass screw to
compensate for
>the restricted
airflow.
>
>Has anyone removed the honeycomb from the outer air
passage? What
were the
>results? Is drivability okay?
Mine isn't totally blocked off, but
the
>outer edges of the fins are
all kinked up and restrict about 20% of
the
>passage area.
-
-------------snip-----------
Rich Leroy damaged his when installing his
FIPK, so he took a pair
of needle-nose pliers and removed the entire
honeycomb. That was
years ago, and the car runs
great!
Forrest
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web
page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:23:52 -0500
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: More water injection fun
> Rich Leroy damaged his when
installing his FIPK, so he took a pair
> of needle-nose pliers and removed
the entire honeycomb. That was
> years ago, and the car runs
great!
Okay, I'll be removing the honeycomb this week and will report on
the
results. Thanks for the info!
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder
VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:26:56 +0200
From: Matthews <matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>
Subject:
Team3S: altitude
Just curious how much altitude affects forced induction
engines vs.
normally aspirated engines. Seems like a turbo would help
compensate to
some degree... Thanx!
- --
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, 20 Sep 1999 17:42:46 +0200
From: Matthews <matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>
Subject:
Team3S: Frankfurt Auto Show
Mike and I visited the Frankfurt Auto Show
yesterday. What a HUGE
extravaganza it is! LOTS of money poured
in there by the manufacturers
and vendors for the benefit of MOBS of people
from all over the world.
Some of the presentations were better than
others. Most of the German
manufacturers had their own halls, and
Mercedes' layout was particularly
impressive. I think just about every
model of every make was
represented, some with multiple trim levels.
Lots of boring smallish
cars popular here in Europe, but also plenty from
Ferrari, Lambo,
Bugatti, Bentley, Porsche (yes, including the new 911
Turbo!), Lotus,
Cadillac (Evoc), Ford (new retro T-bird), etc., all with
complete
specs. There were also some good presentations on alternative
fuels and
lots of car and engine cutaways. We were there for about six
hours and
covered MAYBE HALF of what's there!
Incredible.
Mitsubishi had a good sized section of a hall, but no 3000GT
(not
surprising) and no 2000 Eclipse (very surprising). Also there
was
Getrag... Mike spoke to the representative about the problems we've
been
experiencing and verified that it is Mitsu who is to blame for
the
contractual disaster and that there will be no solution for
the
foreseeable future. He apologized for our problems but could offer
no
more than a few packs of Getrag gummi bears.
Also of note was
Allied Signal's display of Garrett turbochargers. They
are now big into
the variable vane technology and had several examples
that looked bigger and
perhaps superior to the Aerocharger. Those of
you looking into turbo
upgrades would do well to check into these, as
they drastically reduce turbo
lag over similarly sized conventional
turbos.
- --
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, 20 Sep 1999 10:35:48 CDT
From: "Curt Gendron" <curt_gendron@hotmail.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: More water injection fun
Matt, I partially agree with you on
the shifting points. I know I can get
higher boost if I shift at 6,000
rpm as opposed to 6,800 rpm, but I'm not
convinced that I can run better
quarters with that, but I might try it on
Oct. 2nd when we go. But if
you are getting fuel cut at 1.25, that is what
a stock twin turbo should
do. I'd make sure the water is working.
I wanted to run pump gas on
Saturday, to see if it made a difference. I got
very similiar times
with the 100 octane, as I did with pump 92. The water
injection
cancels out the benefit of the 100 octane, but again I agree that
it is a
nice safety feature.
Roger, I don't know if I'm creating knock at any
point for sure. John was
suppose to make a knock sensor weeks ago, but
he hasn't. Yell at him for
me. ;) I agree that I should be
running in the 12s. Another Minn 3/S
member didn't do any better than
me with 100 octane and the boost wide open.
I'm convinced I'm a
crappy driver. I don't think I'm getting a huge
amount of knock at the
track. We'll see if a test pipe and 110 leaded race
gas makes a
difference next time. ;)
John, I turned the limiter down to
1.35. My car gets no hesitation at this
level, like yours, Oskar's and
Francis's. My car runs really strong, I just
wish I could get the
track times to prove it. But I guess the horsepower
numbers speak for
them self.
later,
Curt 13.09 @103.47mph
http://www.mn3s.org
>From: Matt
Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
>To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
>Subject:
RE: Team3S: More water injection fun
>Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:23:30
-0500
>
>At this high of boost, the trigger is likely similar to the
DSM cars where
>the ECU runs out of map area and triggers fuel cut as a
failsafe measure --
>the ECU assumes that the wastegates have
malfunctioned and tries to make
>the
>car misbehave badly enough to
get you to bring it in to the dealer.
>
>I get fuel cut around the
1.25-1.30 area. One of the outer honeycombs in
>my
>MAS was
damaged by the previous owner, so I think my car is running
>extra-rich
because of it and is seeing more airflow than is actually
>occuring.
I'm going to try to back out the bypass screw to compensate for
>the
restricted airflow.
>Curt, you really oughtta run race fuel at the
dragstrip. At least the 100
>octane unleaded if you are going to
crank the boost up. I'd hate to see
>you
>blow your motor on
something so
preventable.
______________________________________________________
Get
Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:26:39 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@swissonline.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: More water injection fun
Matt, there is no need for race gas when
running water injection. WI can provide
knock resistance like running 120-140
octane fuel !
> But if you are getting fuel cut at 1.25, that is
what
> a stock twin turbo should do. I'd make sure the water is
working.
I made exactly these experiencen when I runned the car to the
rebuild. At 1.2 I
got hesitation and at 1.26 fuel cut. Of course, nothing
that I can say safe :(
> John, I turned the limiter down to
1.35. My car gets no hesitation at this
> level, like yours, Oskar's
and Francis's. My car runs really strong, I just
> wish I could get
the track times to prove it. But I guess the horsepower
> numbers
speak for them self.
Question : What have you gapped the plugs to
?
Regards,
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:55:50 -0500
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: More water injection fun
> Matt, there is no need for race gas
when running water
> injection. WI can provide
> knock resistance
like running 120-140 octane fuel !
I'd run the race gas at the track
anyway just because the Spearco kits
aren't the most reliable. Mine
blew a fuse and wasn't injecting water and
John Basol's kit had a bad water
pump. If you are running a little beyond
safe on the street you can
probably get away without the water by having the
timing backed off, but if
the water stops spraying at 1.3 bars, really bad
things are going to happen
in a hurry without race fuel of some sort.
Not something I'd want to risk
my $65,000 car on - but if Curt wants to do
that then that's his
decision. The 100 octane unleaded isn't that far out
of the way to get
for us, and the safety factor is nice. How much does a
motor cost for
these cars? If you blow a chunk out of the block, it is
going to be big
money which could've been prevented by spending the extra $3
a gallon for
racing.
> > John, I turned the limiter down to 1.35. My car
gets no
> > hesitation at this level, like yours, Oskar's and
>
> Francis's. My car runs really strong, I just
> > wish I
could get the track times to prove it. But I guess
> > the
horsepower numbers speak for them self.
All I can say is: "Be
careful!" The extra horsepower isn't worth blowing
the
motor. If it really is making a lot more power, then the times
should
reflect that. Since the times aren't substantially lower than
what you were
running before, I would proceed with extreme caution and figure
out why the
times aren't better. Is the car really making more power,
or does it just
feel like it? When my WI fuse blew, the car acted
pretty much normal, but
just didn't pull as strong past 4500 RPM. Other
than the power falloff, I
had no idea it was knocking - and the falloff
wasn't that obvious. I'd
start by running lower boost levels (still
above 1.0 bar, maybe like 1.1,
then 1.15, then 1.2) and see what times you
get then. The water only helps
to a point, and only mostly in the
midrange with the stock turbos since by
6000 you are back in the safe boost
zone even without the water injection.
As far as horsepower numbers
(Which numbers? Did you find an AWD dyno in
MN???) - if your trap speed
isn't going up, then the numbers should be
suspect.
Sorry if I sound
overly negative, but I could've easily blown up my car when
the WI fuse went,
and I don't want to see someone else (particularly a
friend) not be as lucky
as I was. The car sure feels faster with the water,
but the risk
increases geometrically with boost pressure.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder
VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:12:35 +0200
From: Matthews <matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: More water injection fun
"R.G." wrote:
>
> Matt,
there is no need for race gas when running water injection. WI can
provide
> knock resistance like running 120-140 octane fuel !
I
would think that even with WI, higher octane fuel would
be
advantageous. My understanding is that detonation is essentially
a
result of temperature, pressure and octane. If higher octane fuel
is
used, less water is needed to achieve the same knock-free
performance,
right? So why add more water (non-combustable) when you
can add more
octane (combustable)? I mean, you guys with WI aren't
running the cheap
stuff now, are you? :-)
- --
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, 20 Sep 1999 20:21:04 +0200
From: Matthews <matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>
Subject:
Team3S: variable turbos
I asked this question a few months ago but was
not satisfied with the
answers I got.
Why are folks continuing to
upgrade their stock turbos with larger
conventional (ie- fixed-turbine &
wastegated) turbos when VNT technology
is available? Why put up with
all that lag to get the extra volume? I
was told that the Aerocharger
is too small for our application. How can
this be given that single
Aerochargers are so frequently found on 1.9
liter Miata engines? And
what about turbos from other vendors, such as
Garrett?
Price?
Reliability? Packaging? I just don't get
it.
-Jim
P.S.- Here's an interesting read:
http://www5.ios.com/~vnt4/vntrpt.html
-
--
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, 20 Sep 1999 14:49:17 -0400
From: RJR15@daimlerchrysler.com
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Engine replacement - V-10 in a 3/S?
I also read the article
about the Jeep Wrangler with the V-10 engine. Remember,
the guy pulled
out a 4.0L inline 6 to put in a 8.0L V-10. The V-10 engine was
probably
shorter front-to-back (5 cylinders in a row) than the inline 6 that
it
replaced. Our cars have a 3.0L V-6 mounted transverse (sideways) and
an
associated transmission, so you would be looking at a very
difficult
installation here - a much longer engine and transmission combo
running
North-South vs. East-West.
If you really want a V-10 truck
motor and a manual transmission that can
handle
the torque, then do what the guys down
the hall from me did - build a car
around
it!
You can buy one of these cars, by the way, it's called the Viper.
They run less
than $75-100K,
too!
Roger Roskam
DaimlerChrysler
91 Stealth RT/TT
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:58:13 EDT
From: TrboDrvr@aol.com
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Engine replacement - V-10 in a 3/S?
What about a W-12? Any
takers?
Joe 91TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:15:24 -0500
From: "Basol, John" <jbasol@Carlson.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: variable turbos
Jim,
The VNT technology has been tried
numerous times, even by Chrysler,
and every time the idea was scrapped due to
reliability issues. When
Chrysler tried it on one of my favorite cars
(the Dodge Daytona), they
pulled it after a year of production, citing owner
complaints. I have
talked to a number of Daytona VNT owners, and none
of the ones I have talked
to have had any problems with them, but that
probably explains why they
still have the car. :-) I myself think
the idea is good, but the mechanics
of it are tricky.
John
Basol
'95 RT/TT
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthews [SMTP:matthews@wiesbaden.netsurf.de]
Sent:
Monday, September 20, 1999 1:21 PM
To: Team 3S Tech List
Subject: Team3S:
variable turbos
I asked this question a few months ago but was not
satisfied with
the
answers I got.
Why are folks continuing to
upgrade their stock turbos with larger
conventional (ie- fixed-turbine &
wastegated) turbos when VNT
technology
is available? Why put up with
all that lag to get the extra volume?
I
was told that the Aerocharger is
too small for our application. How
can
this be given that single
Aerochargers are so frequently found on
1.9
liter Miata engines? And
what about turbos from other vendors, such
as
Garrett?
Price?
Reliability? Packaging? I just don't get
it.
-Jim
P.S.- Here's an interesting read:
http://www5.ios.com/~vnt4/vntrpt.html
--
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
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:53:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Dennis Moore <stealth@kiva.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Engine replacement - V-10 in a 3/S?
<soapbox>
OK, we've berated
our fellow list member enough. Just because an issue is
blatantly
obvious to many/most of us, doesn't mean we have to jump all
over somebody
who *doesn't* have the same level of experience and
knowledge. I for
one have never seen an engine of a Viper, and don't have
a firm feel of how
much larger it is than our V-6. (I "know" it is, I
just don't _know_
that it is, if you see the distinction.)
Besides, I've seen some very
small V-8's and some very large 2-cylinder
engines. Maybe there _is_ a
V-10 out there that would fit. Then there
was the Shogun, which dropped
a Ford Taurus SHO engine into the back end
of a Ford Festiva, and all those
mods nearly tripled the price of the
Festiva. I shook my head and asked
"Why?", but if someone wants to build a
special project car, God bless 'em!
I thought one of the fundamental tenets of this list was that there are
no
stupid questions? (Just the occasional inappropriate
one...)
</soapbox>
Dennis Moore
stealth@kiva.net
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:00:33 CDT
From: "Curt Gendron" <curt_gendron@hotmail.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: More water injection fun
Matt,
I appreciate the
concern, and it still makes me a little nervous running
higher boost.
But here are the things I do know:
- - 1.25 or 18psi is the fuel cut mark
with our cars in stock mode under room
tempature.
- - With WI on,
John's car did not get timing retard, even at 1.4 or 20psi.
- - I monitor
the amount of water I'm going through on a regular basis, so I
know it is
working.
- - Therefore, if I'm not getting fuel cut at 1.35, then the
water HAS to be
working.
- - If I got fuel cut, even once at the
18psi mark, I'd turn down the boost
right away and investigate.
I
know these are not the best rules to live by with a $19,000 dollar car.
(my
current book value) But until John makes my knock sensor, that is what I
have to work with. You are worring me more though.
;)
JOHN BASOL, WHERE IS MY KNOCK SENSOR LED?????
As far as the
horsepower numbers. That is what I got with the G-tech.
Check
out: http://mn3s.org/horsepower.html
The
WI is not as effective at the track because our cars will not boost much
past 17-19 psi in "drag" mode. And the sustained boost is only around
15-16
psi. Some racing gas can accomplish the same thing. That
is why my track
times haven't got much
better.
later,
Curt
>From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
>To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
>Subject:
RE: Team3S: More water injection fun
>Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:55:50
-0500
>
>All I can say is: "Be careful!" The extra
horsepower isn't worth blowing
>the motor. If it really is making a
lot more power, then the times should
>reflect that. Since the times
aren't substantially lower than what you
>were
>running before, I
would proceed with extreme caution and figure out why the
>times aren't
better. Is the car really making more power, or does it just
>feel
like it? When my WI fuse blew, the car acted pretty much normal,
but
>just didn't pull as strong past 4500 RPM. Other than the power
falloff, I
>had no idea it was knocking - and the falloff wasn't that
obvious. I'd
>start by running lower boost levels (still above 1.0
bar, maybe like 1.1,
>then 1.15, then 1.2) and see what times you get
then. The water only helps
>to a point, and only mostly in the
midrange with the stock turbos since by
>6000 you are back in the safe
boost zone even without the water injection.
>
>As far as horsepower
numbers (Which numbers? Did you find an AWD dyno in
>MN???) - if
your trap speed isn't going up, then the numbers should
be
>suspect.
>
>Sorry if I sound overly negative, but I
could've easily blown up my car
>when
>the WI fuse went, and I
don't want to see someone else (particularly a
>friend) not be as lucky as
I was. The car sure feels faster with the
>water,
>but the
risk increases geometrically with boost
pressure.
>
>-Matt
>'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
>For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is
>http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
>
______________________________________________________
Get
Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:37:05 -0500
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: More water injection fun
> - 1.25 or 18psi is the fuel cut
mark with our cars in stock
> mode under room
tempature.
Agreed... This is roughly how mine behaves.
>
- With WI on, John's car did not get timing retard, even at
> 1.4 or
20psi.
How did you measure timing retard? Seat-of-pants only works
for very large
variances in timing. If it is to the point where you can
feel it, damage
has already become a possibility. The only instrument I
know of that can
measure the dynamic timing advance on these cars is the TMO
datalogger. If
there's another, I'd like to hear about it as I'd buy
one today (provided it
doesn't cost $2000).
> - I monitor the
amount of water I'm going through on a
> regular basis, so I know it is
working.
So did I. Unfortunately I ran through a whole tank of gas
with no water
injection and 18psi, maybe more because I lent the car to a
friend and it
failed while he had it.
> - Therefore, if I'm not
getting fuel cut at 1.35, then the
> water HAS to be working.
How
does fuel cut relate to whether or not water is being injected into
the
intake stream? The ECU has no idea that this is occurring.
?????
> As far as the horsepower numbers. That is what I got
with
> the G-tech. Check out: http://mn3s.org/horsepower.html
Mmmm...
Insert Matt's "grain of salt" statement here.
> The WI is not as
effective at the track because our cars will
> not boost much past 17-19
psi in "drag" mode. And the
> sustained boost is only around 15-16
psi. Some racing gas
> can accomplish the same thing. That is
why my track
> times haven't got much better.
Hmmm... Mine
will hold 18 psi up to 5000 RPM and then dip to 14 psi at
redline. I
still think that regardless if the car is making more power then
trap speeds
should increase (and generally times should go down). Power
=
propulsive force = higher speed at end of track. All other factors
being
equal (or roughly close), your car should be faster if you are feeding
it
more boost and everything is "okay".
If the car doesn't go faster
on the water, then you might as well not crank
the boost so high to give
yourself less chance of mechanical problems.
Still need more data on the
water injection thing. I think it does
something*, but whether it is
generating an appreciable amount of extra
power on its own I'm not sure
of. Since I have a 2G car, I'm hoping that
Roger or someone with a 1G
car and datalogger will be able to shed light on
the timing curves at various
boost levels and such. With 13G turbos I think
there may be more
increase since the boost will hold higher for longer, but
I think boost much
above 16 psi is really pushing it on the stock turbos.
- -Matt
'95
3000GT Spyder VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:45:37 -0800
From: "nketo" <nketo@accglobal.net>
Subject:
Team3S: bringing down that intake charge temp!
Hello
everyone,
I was wondering if any of you have had experience with
either the
Alamomotorsports or HKS intercoolers.
I am considering getting
one or the other, but would like some opinions
and/or
hard
numbers/stats.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in
advance to all!
Sincerely,
Noble
(nketo@accglobal.net)
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:57:38 -0500
From: Merritt <merritt@cedar-rapids.net>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: bringing down that intake charge temp!
>
>I was
wondering if any of you have had experience with either
the
>Alamomotorsports or HKS intercoolers.
>I am considering getting
one or the other, but would like some opinions
>and/or hard
numbers/stats.
Let me tag onto this request. Why do these furshlugginer
intercoolers cost
so dang much?
Near as I can tell, all they are is a
small heat exchanger that cools air.
This is not nearly as critical or
complex as a water radiator, and doesn't
have any leaking problems. Seems
like we should be able to fabricate
something ourselves out of 1-in. aluminum
tubing and some radiator fins.
What am I missing here?
Rich/old
poop/94 VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:20:29 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: bringing down that intake charge temp!
>Let me tag onto this
request. Why do these furshlugginer intercoolers cost
>so dang
much?
Design !!
>Near as I can tell, all they are is a small
heat exchanger that cools air.
>This is not nearly as critical or complex
as a water radiator, and doesn't
>have any leaking problems.
The
design is very critical ! How much flow do you have in a water radiator
?
Then compare to the flow in an intercooler. the core design bust be as
less
restricted as possible. Any bend, and small restriction causes a loss
in
pressure and increase in temperature. Even the design of the endtanks
is
important. Smoothing the air flow as good as possible is the main thing
!
The core design of an IC compared to a water or oil cooler is
totally
different if the job is done properly. Looking at our stock IC I must
laugh
as the things are really not the best they can do. Check out the Apexi
stuff
and you'll find reall good work :)
I use the water injection
also for intercooling as I installed two nozzles.
The smaller one cools the
air from the rear turbo while the larger controls
detonation. The result is a
reducement from 144 down to 102°F ! No need for
a bigger IC so far
:)
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info,
our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:25:51 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: variable turbos
>Price? Reliability?
Packaging?
You named them ! You know the principle of a charger is easy
but with the
Aerochargers mory tricky elemnts come in play. The cost for such
a
compressor wheel and housing is way over the conventional stuff. I like
the
design and engineering behind it very much but there is just no
application
that would fit some aftermarket demands. Interestingly the new
BMW turbo
diesel engines for the 5 series uses the aerochargers and it is
amazing what
they can do. Have you checked them out in Frankfurt ? But they
are not as
effective as supposed on small engines and this is maybe why we
dont' find
them in our applications but can be seen in engines above 4 liters
including
trucks.
Later
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:30:36 -0500
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: bringing down that intake charge temp!
> I use the water
injection also for intercooling as I
> installed two nozzles. The
smaller one cools the
> air from the rear turbo while the larger
controls
> detonation. The result is a reducement from 144 down
> to
102°F! No need for a bigger IC so far :)
Does any of the water
condense in the intercooler? That was one thing I was
concerned about
when deciding how to hook up my Spearco kit. I know the
Aquamist kit
makes a much finer mist, so it probably isn't as much of a
problem as it
could be with the Spearco kit. The nozzle on the Spearco
doesn't
atomize the water at all, but at least breaks it into
smaller
droplets.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:36:17 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: More water injection fun
I fully agree with more "conservative"
steps in increasing boost.
Retarded timing must not be noticeable.
Although one would say my car has
not enough high end power or I feel some
hesitation. Timing retard is for
safety and nothing bad. On supercharged cars
timing will be retarded on
different rpm ranges and particular amount of
boost to prevent the engine
from earlier death as well as to have the full
power in the other range.
Our ECU retards the timing when it sees a knock
count of more than 16. With
1.05 kg/cm2 and runnign pump gas I saw up to 12
but of course no retard.
Increasing to 1.07 the timing got retarded by 2° due
to a knock sum of 19
around 5500 and up. With the current settings of the
water injection I'm
running 1.15kg/cm2 with knock starting at 4650 and stays
constant to the
redline. Count is about 5 - 10. I now had to reprogram the
water map
controller due to the earlier knock I'm getting. This tells me that
the
valley we saw on our dynosheets must have been changed with the
additional
boost.
This of course, will have a direct impact to the
times as there is more
torque available in the midrange.
>> - I
monitor the amount of water I'm going through on a
>> regular basis, so
I know it is working.
This is another advantage of the ERL as the system
2 is able to detect any
failures and includes a warning light. I once forgot
to connect one nozzle
and got the light immediatly at startup. Additonally,
the light activation
line can be used for another safety, like opening a EBC
bypass valve to
prevent overboosting.
>> - Therefore, if I'm not
getting fuel cut at 1.35, then the
>> water HAS to be
working.
>
>How does fuel cut relate to whether or not water is
being injected into the
>intake stream? The ECU has no idea that
this is occurring. ?????
This is easy ! Fuel cut is initiated if
retarding the timing does not help
to keep the knock amount low. The logs
show that the timing got increased
stepwise. If knock still rises, the timing
got retarded more. If knock the
stays or lowers the retard stays the same. If
knock is getting lower (less
boost in the higher rpm area) the timing is
advanced again.
>> The WI is not as effective at the track because
our cars will
>> not boost much past 17-19 psi in "drag" mode.
And the
>> sustained boost is only around 15-16 psi. Some racing
gas
>> can accomplish the same thing. That is why my
track
>> times haven't got much better.
Ok, I'm running 13g and
they hold boost really good. I've set the gain value
pretty low so there is
zero overboost but a steady presure up to the
redline. WI takes the high
temperature away and you can calculate the power
it will give. It is not a
lot but the calc says that up to 8% can be found
with good intercooling and
the same boost. Therefore, lowering the amount of
water until knock appears
is one of teh right ways. I'm doing the other way,
increasing boost until
knock appears and then readjust the water to lower
it again. Too much
water causes "undercooling" and steals power away.
>If the car doesn't
go faster on the water, then you might as well not crank
>the boost so
high to give yourself less chance of mechanical problems.
Exactly my
words ! I'll attach an analog meter to the water pressure sensor
too. This
way I can measure the water flow by ml/min and see wht the engine
finally
needs.
>Still need more data on the water injection thing. I
think it does
>something*, but whether it is generating an appreciable
amount of extra
>power on its own I'm not sure of.
It really does
two things : Additional intercooling and detonation control.
A nice side
effect is the plenum that is very clean inside :)
>I think boost much
above 16 psi is really pushing it on the stock turbos.
Yes it does. And
we should not forget about the injectors and fuel system
that is totally
maxed out too. Hey our cars are made for 320hp and that's it
! We really have
to work on them to get the running ;-)
Roger
93'3000GT
TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:43:39 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: More water injection fun
>I would think that even with WI,
higher octane fuel would be
>advantageous. My understanding is that
detonation is essentially a
>result of temperature, pressure and
octane.
Higher octane gas is burnt slower and therefore may not ignite
that quick
under high temperatures (what is related to the pressure) Water
does exactly
the same. Racing fuel is not able to take that much heat away as
water does
but the advantage is that it has energy stored and water does not.
Finally
the proper combination is what counts as cooling the chamber must be
done
with excessive fuel that finaly cannot be burnt. Again, think about
what
fuel does and it is not made to cool the chamber
;-)
Cheers
Roger
93'3000GT TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe
info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:51:55 +0200
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: bringing down that intake charge temp!
>Does any of the water
condense in the intercooler?
Sorry, I was not clear enough. The smaller
nozzle is installed in the IC
pipe that is mounted to the front head, above
the turbo. The max IC outlet
temp was 144°F and the pipe was even hotter due
to its mounting position.
The temp is then reduced to about 120°F at first
before it enters the
y-pipe. The second jet is placed right after the BOV
outlet. This provides
mroe intercooling and detonation control. Therefore, no
water is sprayed
into the piping before IC.
> The nozzle on the
Spearco doesn't atomize the water at all, but at least
breaks it into
smaller
>droplets.
This was my major concern about he low water
pressure. I'm running now 7 bar
of water pressure and a test showed how fine
the mist is. Also there are no
droplets or water film on the inside of the
piping. Hey, the sytem uses n
expensive pump and no pressurized tank and
thisis why it is more expensive
;-)
Cheers,
Roger
93'3000GT
TT
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:41:55 EDT
From: Klusmanp@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: heater
problems
Turned on the heater driving to work couple days ago. Cold air
for about 10
minutes long after the water temp gage has come up to "normal
range" (middle
of the gage - sure wish there were some numbers on the
thing). Had the temp
set on 90 deg. Then suddenly I get really hot air after
getting on the gas on
an open stretch of road. Slowing to a stoplight, the
air goes cool again as
the engine idles. Pulling away from the stoplight I
get warm air once again.
The air temp varies directly with my foot on the
gas for about 5 minutes then
finally seems to stabilize.
Last winter,
the air temp would be warm after about 30 seconds of driving
(after the
water temp gage just starts to move of the bottom peg). Something
is screwed
up. Once the air is flowing warm, everything seems to work
normally. I can
turn the fan to its lowest setting and hear the baffles or
louvers or vanes
moving to direct air to dash, windshield, feet, etc. I can
also hear the
vanes move that direct the air to the heater or bypass it for
air temp
control.
Seems like there is some kind of valve in the coolant system
that gets stuck
and won't allow warm water to flow to the heater core
properly - almost like
a second thermostat associated with the heater
system. The temp gage shows
the engine temp. rock stable as usual, so I
don't think the thermostat is bad.
Questions:
1)Added coolant to
the reservior. Thought it was 50/50 mix of
water/antifreeze but turned out
to be pure antifreeze. Could this cause the
problem?
2)Had to replace
battery last week. Could this have reprogrammed the
environmental control
computer? (i.e. is the computer still in some
"learning" mode? - '91
VR4)
3)Is the engine coolant temp gage for real or is a stupid gage like
turbo
boost?
4)Is there some valve or secondary thermostat that feeds
warm coolant to the
heater system that might be bad?
Thanks for any
help.
Paul Klusman
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
------------------------------
End
of Team3S Digest V1 #288
****************************
For unsubscribe
info and FAQ, see our web page at http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm