--

From: owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com (Team3S Digest)
To: stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
Subject: Team3S Digest V1 #330
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, November 8 1999         Volume 01 : Number 330




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

Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:10:29 -0800
From: "3000gtvr4" <gtovr4@postalzone.com>
Subject: Re: Honey Combs ....Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

Hey Benson and all,

Just to let all of u know..I removed the honey combs on my MAF two years
ago... and ever since ..my car has been idling like crap. I thought at first
it was the TPS and IAC sensor...got those replaced including a throttle body
clean out and injector clean out. Did practically everything including a
leak-down test...MY POINT is that I wasted alot of time and money (I think)
as it could have been due to those stupid honey combs I removed. Hau Wang
said it was fine as he did that on his 95 VR4 but guess what? I think it is
not very fine afterall. To cut my babbling story short...I called up
Tallahassee Mitsu and spoke to Jeremy. The cost of a new MAF unit is approx:
398.62$ including shipping (I think) and this is with the 3S discount. Part
Number is MD183618.

However, msrecycling.com called me back the other day and they have used
MAFs taken from "receycled" VR4's and they are selling it for 270$ shipping
included. I spoke to someone by the name of Curtis.

Hope this helps ...and Benson please check take note on when u removed those
honey combs as if your idle begins to fluctuate during cold temperatures or
at any period of time..then u know u have been pulled into "The Storm of the
Century" (Sorry got a bit dramatic there)

Later everyone,

Julian Ng
94 Pearl White VR4
Seattle Shipyard Shooting Washington :)
gtovr4@postalzone.com

- -----Original Message-----
From: Benson "elmagoo" Russell <benson@2015.com>
To: 3000GT Mailing <stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
Date: Saturday, November 06, 1999 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..


>That's a good question about the honey-comb things.  When I put on my K&N,
>it was hell and high-water to get that damn original air-box off of the
MAS.
>I accidentally in the process destroyed the two smaller honeycomb pieces on
>the side (the rounded ones), but managed to salvage the big one in the
>center.  So I'm running with just one of those pieces in due to engineering
>stupidity on those damn 4 screws that hold the MAS to the stock air-box.
It
>took me 3+ hours and a friends help to get those two things separated, and
I
>had to totally shred the bottom portion of the stock air-box.  It's an
>amusing story to say the least :).
>
>
>Latuh fuh U,
>Benson
>benson@2015.com
>
>"-Do you ever have second thoughts?
>-When do I ever have first thoughts?"
>
>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, 8 Nov 1999 00:29:11 -0800
From: "Jose Soriano" <amahoser@linkline.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Throttle body adjustment screw

> Has anybody else blown out a throttle body adjustment screw?   I've never
heard
> of such a story so I thought I'd relay mine...
I have! Went through the same thing you did. The dealer I went to said they
had the screw in stock. I went down to pick it up and it was the wrong
screw. They then told me it was not available and I would have to order an
entire throttlebody assy.  I decided to hold off and see if I can get the
part some other way. Anyways I called up M&S recycling and they DID have the
idle adust screw!! But they wanted a fortune for it. (can't remember how
much but I believe around $60!!!) Well I figured that it was cheaper than
the throotle body assy. I ordered it. Worked like a champ!! BTW the screw
they gave me was metal NOT plastic.



Jose Soriano
Amahoser@Linkline.com
'91 Stealth RT/TT



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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:37:32 +0100
From: lehir@genesiscom.ch (Genesiscon Lehir)
Subject: Team3S: Any specific instructions on 3S to do a compression test

Hello

I still have problems with my *ç%&/( Stealth RT/TT

Found out that as the engine is cold I have quite some amount of air blown
trough the oil refill opening.....but it goes away when the engine is warm.

It's probably time for a compression test..

And specific instructions for the Dodge ?

Henri

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:51:06 EST
From: Muratokcu@aol.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: DSM turbo's on 3/S cars.

what about switching the center section only? would a 1st gen eclipse A/T 13g
work on a T/T then?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:09:34 -0800
From: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@netapp.com>
Subject: Team3S: SF Area AutoX

Well..I went, and Oakland Coll. will probably not be a place I will wanna autox
again.

Was a total sandbox by the 3rd set of runs.

I eeked out a time to equal a Ferrari in my class, but being on race rubber
really hurt me in the gravel being torn up out of the asphalt.

If the local region hosts a race on a stable surface, I'll be there, and KILLING
people, not just catching up.
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:27:37 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: DSM 13G cartridge in 3/S turbos

I forgot who asked, but I don't think you could just drop in a cartridge from a DSM auto tranny turbo for the rear turbo.  I think the vanes on the compressor and exhaust side wheel would also need to be reversed since the flow through both sides is reversed.  You could look in the intake side of the rear turbo and see if it matches the front side.  If that's reversed, you know you are in trouble.

Interesting idea though...  Maybe you could get the internals for the front side turbo, and somehow acquire a reversed one for the rear.  Or just buy a rear 13G and save a ton of money.

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:19:03 -0800
From: Ken Middaugh <Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

Most all questions have been answered, but here is one that puzzled me for a
while.

> 6) I've heard that our cars loose %33 through the drivetrain... Is that
> accurate? If so, how much does a smaller pulley help?

Roger, Jim, & Mikael measured drivetrain loss on an AWD dyno earlier this year
to be about 99 HP.  Loss is 99 HP if your engine is stock or modified to 600HP.
Thus you don't want to mention drivetrain loss as a percentage unless you also
include the flywheel HP.

e.g.  99/300 = 33% loss
        99/600 = 16.5% loss

Enjoy your new VR4!

- --
I'm just driving this way to piss you off!

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, 8 Nov 1999 12:58:26 -0600
From: "Owens, Trent L." <Trent.Owens@destia.com>
Subject: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????

Hey guys...  I have one for ya!

Yesterday I was installing my new Apexi R BC.  Using Brian's instructions I
pulled the plugs and regapped the NGK's to .034.  I put everything back
together and installed the BC. 

Installing the BC:

I capped the bottom line of the stock solenoid.  Then I routed the line from
the Y-pipe to "NC" on the BC solenoid.  (NC is the IN on the solenoid)  Then
I routed the "COM" or OUT on the BC solenoid to a port on the 4-way.

Once I fished everything and double checked it all.....  I started the car.
WHAT???  Its missing!  And the check engine light it on....  I go back and
recheck everything.  Everything seems to be connected.  Now...  Insert
favorite four letter words!!!!

I then go back and remover the intake and recheck all the plugs and wires...
Reassymble....  Same thing!!  I return to the stock BC to the stock
setup...and its still missing with the check engine light ON!  More four
letter words!

Anybody have any advice or have ran into this problem before?  I worked with
the battery disconnected and reset the ECU each time I changed something.

Thanks for your help!!!

Trent Owens
95 RT TT

Totally stock except for .34 NGK's.  And if I can get this taken care of..
Apexi-R BC.


















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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:11:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Wise <diranged@hearme.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

That doesnt make sense to me... I've NEVER heard of drivetrain loss being
measured as a streight amount of HP loss. Its ALWAYS been (as far as I
remember) thought of as a percentage.

- --Matt Wise
*NOC Admin*
(650) 429 3751

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Ken Middaugh wrote:

> Most all questions have been answered, but here is one that puzzled me for a
> while.
>
> > 6) I've heard that our cars loose %33 through the drivetrain... Is that
> > accurate? If so, how much does a smaller pulley help?
>
> Roger, Jim, & Mikael measured drivetrain loss on an AWD dyno earlier this year
> to be about 99 HP.  Loss is 99 HP if your engine is stock or modified to 600HP.
> Thus you don't want to mention drivetrain loss as a percentage unless you also
> include the flywheel HP.
>
> e.g.  99/300 = 33% loss
>         99/600 = 16.5% loss
>
> Enjoy your new VR4!
>
> --
> I'm just driving this way to piss you off!
>
> 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, 8 Nov 1999 13:28:00 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????

> Once I fished everything and double checked it all.....  I
> started the car.  WHAT???  Its missing!  And the check
> engine light it on....  I go back and recheck everything.
> Everything seems to be connected.  Now...  Insert
> favorite four letter words!!!!

If you connected the line from the AVC-R to an injector line
or RPM, check to make sure the line didn't get cut when you
spliced it.  Sounds like maybe you spliced into an injector
wire and the ECU isn't getting the signal to the coil pack.
Maybe.....

I'd check that first.

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:29:49 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

> That doesnt make sense to me... I've NEVER heard of
> drivetrain loss being measured as a streight amount
> of HP loss. Its ALWAYS been (as far as I remember)
> thought of as a percentage.

Why would the amount of loss be dynamic?  Shouldn't
there be the same amount of inertia or friction
regardless of the input power?  The percentage
thing makes less sense.

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4


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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:36:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Wise <diranged@hearme.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

I dont know.. I've always been tought that it was dynamic..

- --Matt Wise
*NOC Admin*
(650) 429 3751

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Matt Jannusch wrote:

> > That doesnt make sense to me... I've NEVER heard of
> > drivetrain loss being measured as a streight amount
> > of HP loss. Its ALWAYS been (as far as I remember)
> > thought of as a percentage.
>
> Why would the amount of loss be dynamic?  Shouldn't
> there be the same amount of inertia or friction
> regardless of the input power?  The percentage
> thing makes less sense.
>
> -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, 8 Nov 1999 14:48:29 -0500
From: "Mark Elkin" <markelkin@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

I am not an engineer, but, if losses through the drivetrain are static, does
that mean that it takes ~99 hp from the engine just to get the car to roll?
I am probably simplifying somewhat, but, I have a difficult time believing
that.  Do frictional losses through a drivetrain not vary with velocity
(similar to the way drag increases in proportion to square of speed when
looking at aerodynamics ).  Also, I guess drivetrain oil/lubricants may
behave differently at different temps but differences may be negligible when
looking at hp.

Any engineers able to explain ?

- -Mark '96 3KGT VR4

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
[mailto:owner-stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com]On Behalf Of Matt Jannusch
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 14:30
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject: RE: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..


> That doesnt make sense to me... I've NEVER heard of
> drivetrain loss being measured as a straight amount
> of HP loss. Its ALWAYS been (as far as I remember)
> thought of as a percentage.

Why would the amount of loss be dynamic?  Shouldn't
there be the same amount of inertia or friction
regardless of the input power?  The percentage
thing makes less sense.

- -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, 8 Nov 1999 14:56:08 EST
From: Muratokcu@aol.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: DSM 13G cartridge in 3/S turbos

I will throw in a more controversial idea, how about assymetric turbos? I
mean, a big turbo just for the front?

SAAB has a V6 with a turbo on only one bank, feeding both banks.
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:57:51 EST
From: Muratokcu@aol.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

if so, then what would happen if I only had 98HP? would I be able to go
anywhere?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:03:50 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

> I am not an engineer, but, if losses through the drivetrain
> are static, does that mean that it takes ~99 hp from the
> engine just to get the car to roll?  I am probably
> simplifying somewhat, but, I have a difficult time
> believing that.  Do frictional losses through a
> drivetrain not vary with velocity (similar to the way
> drag increases in proportion to square of speed when
> looking at aerodynamics ).  Also, I guess drivetrain
> oil/lubricants may behave differently at different temps
> but differences may be negligible when looking at hp.
>
> Any engineers able to explain ?

I'm not an engineer, but I'll try to clarify my thinking...

Drag on a drivetrain is often expressed as a percentage of output power from the engine.  If your motor is putting out 320 HP (stock for '94-99 3/S cars) and on the dyno you measure 240 HP then theoretically at your HP peak you are seeing a 25% drivetrain loss (240/320), assuming that your motor actually makes 320 HP.

Now if you pump up your motor so it is outputting 800 HP, will your dyno run indicate 740 HP or will it indicate 600 HP?  I'm going to put my money on 740 HP.  The frictional and inertial losses shouldn't increase in proportion to the amount of power being input to the system.  They should remain the same as it takes a certain amount of work to cause the rotation of the parts and overcome any other frictional losses.

To answer Mark's first question:

Does it take 99hp to get the car rolling?  No.  It takes 99hp to maintain the amount of power and speed transmitted to the dyno rollers at the time the measurement was taken.  These losses will be a lot lower at slower speeds.

Not saying that's the case, but I'm not seeing opposing views yet...

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:06:58 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

> if so, then what would happen if I only had 98HP? would I be
> able to go anywhere?

You would already be moving, since that amount is calculated somewhere around 5500 RPM in third gear.  You'd have a difficult time going faster though, and overcoming the wind resistance would be tough.

:-)

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:07:14 -0600
From: "Owens, Trent L." <Trent.Owens@destia.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????

Thanks for everyone's help!

As for the wiring of the Apexi.....   I had already installed the monitoring
part of the boost controller a week ago so I would know what the stock
measurements were.  Everything works well with the wiring.  I tapped into
the RPM wire because our injectors get maxed out too early.  No problems
with the wiring.

However.....  I backtracked and checked all the vac hoses, connections and
even though I didnt remove it, the MAS connection.  The Boost control has
been returned to stock and I still get a check engine and missfire.  I
believe it is only missing on one cylinder because it idles and runs ok....
just rough with not as much power.....  Still getting 12psi of boost too.

Im really confused!  Does the ECU monitor the ignition other than a missing
connection?  In other words, would it detect a broken plug or wire?  I dont
think it does....  but I could be wrong!

Again, thanks for your help!

Trent

95 RT TT

- -----Original Message-----
From: Owens, Trent L.
To: 'stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com'
Sent: 11/8/99 12:58 PM
Subject: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????

Hey guys...  I have one for ya!

Yesterday I was installing my new Apexi R BC.  Using Brian's
instructions I
pulled the plugs and regapped the NGK's to .034.  I put everything back
together and installed the BC. 

Installing the BC:

I capped the bottom line of the stock solenoid.  Then I routed the line
from
the Y-pipe to "NC" on the BC solenoid.  (NC is the IN on the solenoid)
Then
I routed the "COM" or OUT on the BC solenoid to a port on the 4-way.

Once I fished everything and double checked it all.....  I started the
car.
WHAT???  Its missing!  And the check engine light it on....  I go back
and
recheck everything.  Everything seems to be connected.  Now...  Insert
favorite four letter words!!!!

I then go back and remover the intake and recheck all the plugs and
wires...
Reassymble....  Same thing!!  I return to the stock BC to the stock
setup...and its still missing with the check engine light ON!  More four
letter words!

Anybody have any advice or have ran into this problem before?  I worked
with
the battery disconnected and reset the ECU each time I changed
something.

Thanks for your help!!!

Trent Owens
95 RT TT

Totally stock except for .34 NGK's.  And if I can get this taken care
of..
Apexi-R BC.


















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, 8 Nov 1999 20:59:34 +0100
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Went drag racing today, need some opinions !

> I'm not sure what you are recommending for wires but I hope it's not
Magnecor.  I'm
> not in the business of making spark plug wires, and I'm no electrical
engineer, but what
> I do know about electricity is that the less resistance and voltage drop
the better.

Sure, but also read the stuff about the skin-effect in the ee-books :) The
current will travel in the wire but also on the surface there is an electric
field that acts like a carrier and this results in the skin effect. I forgot
the most about it but I know that I made some experiments with the stuff and
it worked :)

> It's common knowledge (even Magnecor admits it) that their voltage drop
isn't very low,
> from what I've heard they compare to stock wires on our cars.  At this
level of
> modifications I doubt any wires would help much.

Absolutely right ! The stock wires will hold up to whatever. No need to
change them ! BUT, any wire works with the help of the skin effect, but the
Magnecores are designed to use it. Therefore the build up of the wire is
different and electrical shorts due to water or the wire lying on the heads
is not a problem (better said: should not be a problem)

>  I myself have run 12s (something I recall you and others telling me I
couldn't do)
> utilizing Accel wires, and I'm 99.99 percent sure that Mike Mahaffey runs
> Accel also.

Sure, if everything is ok with the wires, why should they hinder you running
fast times ? I myself wouldn't buy Accels, nor Taylor nor Magnecors although
I have the later ones. Each of them have a drawback and I haven't found the
really good ones yet.

> As far as the boost controller goes maybe we should talk to Jack Tertadian
> about running low 12s with a bleeder valve.

Not again the same discussion :-(( Why not asking one how fast he can go
with a plugged up y-pipe nipple, eh ? I'm sure he'll run into the 12s easily
even with a passenger, and two hot-dogs in one and a can of popcorn i nthe
other hand, LOL. What do you think can rise boost quicker ? A bleeder or a
BC with a controlled valve ? For this, you may get a new Apexi and record
the runs with a bleeder valve installed and then with the BC solenoid.

>  I have the feeling it's more than just driver error, something's not
right.
>  I've run 13.36 with just a filter and pump gas, no other mods at all.

Wow, you must be a very good driver as this is what a lot people do with max
boost at 15psi ! Btw, 5 or 6 speed ?

> Wording like this would suggest that it's common knowledge that Accel
wires
> are junk, that's just not the case.

Well, they were junk on my Camaro and the Taylor are better but still not
the real good ones.

> The only reason I would say that low 13s aren't possible is given the
facts that
> we have in this particular situation, his car isn't running well.

Absolutely right, and if he's doing better and runs into low 12s with 15 psi
with the Accells will show that they are good in the car. That's why I told
him to look for anything else BEFORE he changes the wires (dunno if it was a
private reply).

Roger
93'3000GT TT


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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:05:30 +0100
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Honey Combs ....Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

Guys, wait before buying a new MAF as maybe a simple mesh of stainless steel
will help. This is what the MAFs have in the Camaro/Firebird/Corvettes. If
you removed the front plastic part, you may be able to secure such a mesh
behind it and it should straigthen the flow just enough. The sensor is in
the middle part and it is maybe enough just to insert a screen there. You
can try different mesh sizes and you'll notice pretty fast how good the idle
is. Just make sure to drive the car a little to let it learn until it idles
correctly.

Good luck,
Roger
93'3000GT TT

> Hope this helps ...and Benson please check take note on when u removed
those
> honey combs as if your idle begins to fluctuate during cold temperatures
or
> at any period of time..then u know u have been pulled into "The Storm of
the
> Century" (Sorry got a bit dramatic there)


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

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

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 15:34:14 -0500
From: Jeff Schwartz <jeff.schwartz@citicorp.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????

First thing I would do is to get the code from the check engine light. 
There is a pin, (I have to look up which pin) on the OBD connector
which when you short it to ground, the check engine light will flash
with the code for the problem.  The codes are in the repair manual, or
I might have them, I have to look. 
I had the exact same problem and it turned out to be a wire going to
one of the rear fuel injectors had poped out just enough not to make
a connection.  I had to use epoxy to clue the wire back in or buy a
new fuel injector connector.  Just a guess, but check all the wiring
to the injectors coz they are easy to knock out while changing the
plugs.

- --
Jeff Schwartz
1995 Panama Green Pearl VR4
Borla, K&N, and Magnecors

Owens, Trent L. wrote:
>
> Hey guys...  I have one for ya!
>
> Yesterday I was installing my new Apexi R BC.  Using Brian's instructions I
> pulled the plugs and regapped the NGK's to .034.  I put everything back
> together and installed the BC.
>
> Installing the BC:
>
> I capped the bottom line of the stock solenoid.  Then I routed the line from
> the Y-pipe to "NC" on the BC solenoid.  (NC is the IN on the solenoid)  Then
> I routed the "COM" or OUT on the BC solenoid to a port on the 4-way.
>
> Once I fished everything and double checked it all.....  I started the car.
> WHAT???  Its missing!  And the check engine light it on....  I go back and
> recheck everything.  Everything seems to be connected.  Now...  Insert
> favorite four letter words!!!!
>
> I then go back and remover the intake and recheck all the plugs and wires...
> Reassymble....  Same thing!!  I return to the stock BC to the stock
> setup...and its still missing with the check engine light ON!  More four
> letter words!
>
> Anybody have any advice or have ran into this problem before?  I worked with
> the battery disconnected and reset the ECU each time I changed something.
>
> Thanks for your help!!!
>
> Trent Owens
> 95 RT TT
>
> Totally stock except for .34 NGK's.  And if I can get this taken care of..
> Apexi-R BC.
>
> 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, 8 Nov 1999 21:34:12 +0100
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)

EE yes, but I had a window place during physics, LOL. Matt Jannusch is very
right in his descriptions as it's simply physics what is going on here.

In short, drivetrain loss is dynamic BUT it relates on a lot stuff ! Looking
at the dyno runs one must know that the tests have been done in 4th gear.
The easist calculation is : the higher the speed the more the loss. But it
is not linear as the rolling friction relates on the tires, the weight of
the wheel/tires (the wider the worser !) the oil temp, the bearings and
more. Please note, the loss is tested with the clutch pressed and the tranny
put to neutral to get the real loss of tranny and transfer case, i.e. the
drive train.

The only percentage you can tell is at the peak horsepower. And this is then
very related to the car tested and therefore you can only say that the loss
is about 30% when measuring the peak hp at the same rpm/speed for each other
car. But if you change the exhaust, you may shift the power band and the
percentage loss at the same rpm as before is lower or higher.

To summerize the stuff : The drivetrain loss is a non-linear power curve
that follows the rpm/speed band. It is not calculateable as there are too
many variables.  A % for the loss is only a very rough estimate that depends
on the rpm. If the same car produces 400hp at 6000 and the loss is 120hp the
loss is still the same with the same drivetrain but with an engine making
500hp at the same rpm.

Later,
Roger
93'3000GT TT

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

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

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 15:37:43 -0500
From: Jeff Schwartz <jeff.schwartz@citicorp.com>
Subject: Team3S: Redline MTL or MT-90???

What does everyone recommend for use in the Transmission,
Transfer Case, and Rear Axel.  I get different stories from
different speed shops.  I have a 95 VR4.

The cars specs show to use 75W90 in the Trani and Xfer case. 
I spoke to Redline, but their tech was out, so the person on
staff told me that for New York, to use MTL, which is a
75W/80W, and a little thinner for the colder weather we have
here.  MT-90 is a 75W90 oil.  Shouldn't I stick with the
manufactures specs?

Also, should I use the same oil in the trasfer case as well?

For the rear axel, they said to use Redline 75W90 gear oil. 
They said the Shock Proof heavy is too thick for the every day
driver.  It's really made for racing and will be too thick for
general use.

        Thanks,
        Jeff
- --
Jeff Schwartz
1995 Panama Green Pearl VR4
Borla, K&N, and Magnecors
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:41:54 +0100
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????

> However.....  I backtracked and checked all the vac hoses, connections and
> even though I didnt remove it, the MAS connection.  The Boost control has
> been returned to stock and I still get a check engine and missfire.  I
> believe it is only missing on one cylinder because it idles and runs
ok....
> just rough with not as much power.....  Still getting 12psi of boost too.

I guess you accidentially disconnected some wires to the injectors or the
plug wires or there is a short in one or more of the wires.

> Im really confused!  Does the ECU monitor the ignition other than a
missing
> connection?  In other words, would it detect a broken plug or wire?  I
dont
> think it does....  but I could be wrong!

Yes, it does. It is able to detect the problems as it listens to the knock
sensor when a cylinder ignites. If no "sound" is heard after a specific time
the ECU waits for some other tries and if the problem is still there it
determines that there is a real problem.

As you removed the plenum it is possible that you created a problem by
scratching something. You may try to get out the code to see what the ECU
reads. When fixed, reset the ECU so the code will be cleared. Otherwise it
is possible that it runs in emergency mode and dosn't come out of it.

Good luck,
Roger
93'3000GT TT

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:00:26 -0600
From: "Benson \"elmagoo\" Russell" <benson@2015.com>
Subject: Team3S: the honeycomb shtuff :)

> Hope this helps ...and Benson please check take note on when u removed
those
> honey combs as if your idle begins to fluctuate during cold temperatures
or
> at any period of time..then u know u have been pulled into "The Storm of
the
> Century" (Sorry got a bit dramatic there)


Well I have a '95 non-turbo 3000 so that might be making a difference.  The
car has never had a problem idling after putting the K&N back on, but there
was one pecular problem that did happen.  When the car sat off for a long
time (as in over-night), when I would get in to drive the car, no matter
what gear I started out in (meaning either 1st, or reverse), unless I
applied a ton of gas (as in getting to about 5000 rpms), the car would start
to choke and almost stall right as the gear was engaging as I let up on the
clutch.  But almost immediately after I drove for about 5 seconds, it
wouldn't do that again (it was as if the ECU had to quickly re-learn the
air-flow or something).  It took about 2 weeks or so for the car to stop
doing that all together, so I guess the ECU was just learning and adjusting
over that time period.  It has ever done that since, except for now that
it's getting colder.  It will do that same problem until the engine has
warmed up, and then it disappears (which isn't a problem really, because I
always warm my car in the cold weather).

But that's the only problem I've experienced after the K&N, but never a
problem with the idle.  Any ideas what this is?


Latuh fuh U,
Benson
benson@2015.com

"-Do you ever have second thoughts?
- -When do I ever have first thoughts?"

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

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

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 13:08:32 -0800
From: Jim Watkins <jwatkins@terayon.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

I'm an engineer (electrical, not mechanical).  It seems that Matt is
closest to the truth.  Looking at a 2nd gen car for numbers, the losses are
roughly linearly related from 0 to 95 hp over the 700 to 6000 rpm band.
So, losses increase with increasing engine speed.  If you take each gear to
6000 rpm, when shifting to higher gears the rpm will stay above 3000 and
the losses will not drop to 0, but to something over 40 HP.  Think of it as
a sawtooth pattern, where the losses increase with rpm until you shift and
then they drop down to a lower level.  The sawtooth does have a higher
starting point with each shift because the gears are closer together and
each upshift from 6000 rpm results in a higher starting rpm for the next
gear.  But if you want to calculate HP losses at maximum engine power, they
are approximately 95 HP, not a percentage of the total HP.  If you could
get your engine to rev to 8000 or 9000, losses would be higher at those
revs...

Jim
'95 300GT Spyder VR4

At 02:03 PM 11/08/1999 -0600, Matt Jannusch wrote:
>> I am not an engineer, but, if losses through the drivetrain
>> are static, does that mean that it takes ~99 hp from the
>> engine just to get the car to roll?  I am probably
>> simplifying somewhat, but, I have a difficult time
>> believing that.  Do frictional losses through a
>> drivetrain not vary with velocity (similar to the way
>> drag increases in proportion to square of speed when
>> looking at aerodynamics ).  Also, I guess drivetrain
>> oil/lubricants may behave differently at different temps
>> but differences may be negligible when looking at hp.
>>
>> Any engineers able to explain ?
>
>I'm not an engineer, but I'll try to clarify my thinking...
>
>Drag on a drivetrain is often expressed as a percentage of output power
from the engine.  If your motor is putting out 320 HP (stock for '94-99 3/S
cars) and on the dyno you measure 240 HP then theoretically at your HP peak
you are seeing a 25% drivetrain loss (240/320), assuming that your motor
actually makes 320 HP.
>
>Now if you pump up your motor so it is outputting 800 HP, will your dyno
run indicate 740 HP or will it indicate 600 HP?  I'm going to put my money
on 740 HP.  The frictional and inertial losses shouldn't increase in
proportion to the amount of power being input to the system.  They should
remain the same as it takes a certain amount of work to cause the rotation
of the parts and overcome any other frictional losses.
>
>To answer Mark's first question:
>
>Does it take 99hp to get the car rolling?  No.  It takes 99hp to maintain
the amount of power and speed transmitted to the dyno rollers at the time
the measurement was taken.  These losses will be a lot lower at slower speeds.
>
>Not saying that's the case, but I'm not seeing opposing views yet...
>
>-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, 08 Nov 1999 13:10:00 -0800
From: Ken Middaugh <Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

> That doesnt make sense to me... I've NEVER heard of drivetrain loss being
> measured as a streight amount of HP loss. Its ALWAYS been (as far as I
> remember) thought of as a percentage.

Sure, it often is expressed as a percentage.  But the complete description is "a
percentage of the stock flywheel HP".  You can't say it is a percentage unless
you say what it is a percentage of.  In reality, loss is a constant regardless
of the engine flywheel HP. 

Hopefully this example will illustrate the pitfall of using loss as a
percentage.  Say someone (me:)) has a G-Tech Pro.  They measure a wheel HP of
201 on a stock 1st gen.  So to calculate engine flywheel HP, they use the
formula:  flywheel HP = wheel HP / (1 - loss), or 201 / ( 1 - .33 ) = 300.  That
answer looks good and is indeed correct because the loss is 33% of 300 HP.  Now
they make some mods, K&N FIPK bleeder valve, then measure 260 wheel HP.  Using
the above incorrect assumption and formula, they would erroneously calculate the
flywheel HP as 260 / ( 1 - .33 ) = 388.  The correct formula is:  wheel HP +
loss HP = flywheel HP, or 260 + 99 = 359.

I hope that clarifies things a bit,
Ken

> --Matt Wise
> *NOC Admin*
> (650) 429 3751
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Ken Middaugh wrote:
>
> > Most all questions have been answered, but here is one that puzzled me for a
> > while.
> >
> > > 6) I've heard that our cars loose %33 through the drivetrain... Is that
> > > accurate? If so, how much does a smaller pulley help?
> >
> > Roger, Jim, & Mikael measured drivetrain loss on an AWD dyno earlier this year
> > to be about 99 HP.  Loss is 99 HP if your engine is stock or modified to 600HP.
> > Thus you don't want to mention drivetrain loss as a percentage unless you also
> > include the flywheel HP.
> >
> > e.g.  99/300 = 33% loss
> >         99/600 = 16.5% loss
> >
> > Enjoy your new VR4!
> >
> > --
> > I'm just driving this way to piss you off!
> >
> > Ken Middaugh          (858) 455-4510
> > General Atomics
> > San Diego
> >
>
> For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

- --
I'm just driving this way to piss you off!

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, 8 Nov 1999 13:14:59 -0800
From: "Gross, Erik" <erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: Team3S: Test for dying clutch?

Hey guys,

Quick question:

How do you test a clutch you suspect may be on the verge of wearing out?


Things I've noticed:

* Engagement point has migrated upward significantly (only 1" or so
from top of pedal travel) since it was new
* Clutch "feel" is pretty soft/forgiving lately
* It *might* have slipped slightly today...
Slowing down for traffic in 2nd, going about 7mph.
Too lazy to go for 1st, so I just accelerated when traffic moved.
Not flooring it, but on the throttle a bit. 
Felt a very slight slip as I accelerated.
Car seemed to drive normally after that.

So does that sound conclusive to you?  If it's going, I guess I should
probably make an appointment to get it replaced now, but I don't want to
jump the gun.  I could adjust the pedal so the engagement point is farther
down, but I don't want to simply mask the problem for a few days if the
clutch is going...

- --Erik

- ------                                             ----------
Erik Gross                                         DuPont, WA
'95 Pearl White 3000GT (NA, DOHC, 5-speed)          63,000 mi
Firestone Firehawk 245/50/ZR16 tires, stock wheels
Magnacor KV85 spark plug wires, NGK plugs @ 0.040"
K&N FIPK (57-1500), resonator intact
Mobil 1 10W30 Synthetic w/ OEM oil filter
***No more ticking lash adjusters!  Treated with GM EOS, BG
   44K FI cleaner. Change oil every 2000mi, filter 4000mi ***
- -------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:21:09 -0800
From: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

No way..I cant buy that.

Loss is a percentage.

Your math tells me im producing 99Hp to turn the wheels, much less move the car.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Middaugh [mailto:Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:19 AM
To: Matt Wise
Cc: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..


Most all questions have been answered, but here is one that puzzled me for a
while.

> 6) I've heard that our cars loose %33 through the drivetrain... Is that
> accurate? If so, how much does a smaller pulley help?

Roger, Jim, & Mikael measured drivetrain loss on an AWD dyno earlier this year
to be about 99 HP.  Loss is 99 HP if your engine is stock or modified to 600HP.
Thus you don't want to mention drivetrain loss as a percentage unless you also
include the flywheel HP.

e.g.  99/300 = 33% loss
        99/600 = 16.5% loss

Enjoy your new VR4!

- --
I'm just driving this way to piss you off!

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, 8 Nov 1999 13:22:44 -0800
From: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: DSM 13G cartridge in 3/S turbos

Ive considered that, but the intake systetms are connected at the TB.

An upgraded turbo would just 'backfill' the smaller turbo's IC plumbing.

It would not result in a increase, as that one turbo would not be doing 1/2 the
work, but more like 3/4 the work (depending on turbos used..etc)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Muratokcu@aol.com [mailto:Muratokcu@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:56 AM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: DSM 13G cartridge in 3/S turbos


I will throw in a more controversial idea, how about assymetric turbos? I
mean, a big turbo just for the front?

SAAB has a V6 with a turbo on only one bank, feeding both banks.
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, 8 Nov 1999 13:21:49 -0800
From: "Bob Forrest" <bf@bobforrest.com>
Subject: Team3S: Honey Combs - A theory...

A number of ideas about honeycombs have been offered on the list--
what they do..., how they work..., are they necessary..., are they a
necessity for the turbos but not the NTs..., etc...  Here's one more
idea for you to ponder: Are they there ONLY to straighten airflow
from an *asymmetrical* stock airbox?  (I say YES).  And when you
switch to a symmetrical filter box, are they still necessary?  (I
say NO).  Here's why (partial repost from a discussion we had on the
list just over a month ago...)--

When Mark Kibort (racer and design engineer) and I were doing the
first test of his eRAM Electric Supercharger on my car, we were
forced to angle it downward-- pointing at the MAS honeycomb at a
very sharp angle.  Since Mark had previous results with other cars
that were roughly twice as good as what we got on my Stealth NT, he
did some testing in his own lab...  His results showed that when air
is directed at the honeycomb at a steep angle, close to 50% of the
speed of that air is lost by the interference created by the cells
of the honeycomb!  Our stock airbox allows air to enter the intake
path from different distances-- the top of the airbox is closer to
the MAS than the bottom.  Therefore, it may be possible that the
only reason for the honeycomb is to even out the flow from the stock
airbox so the sensor can get a correct reading.

But when you replace the stock airbox with a K&N FIPK, air enters
symmetrically, so it's possible that the honeycomb is no longer
required.  Almost all the air is entering at the same speed, so
maybe you don't need a honeycomb to make it a consistent stream of
air, and you don't need all that resistance slowing down your
airflow.

According to the gurus at Frey Racing (who did my dyno test of the
eRAM), that intake tube on our NT 3/S cars is a power-robbing
horror...  It's got an ullage tank (the resonator [on NTs only],
which most of us have removed), the honeycomb, two 90-degree bends,
and a segmented construction 'hose'-- all of these things result in
a veritable "obstacle course" for the intake air.  I couldn't find
time to do it this summer, but I'm going to try to redesign our
intake, switching to smooth tubing, and eliminating one of the
90-degree elbows...  I'll have to move the MAS and I'll probably
move the battery to the trunk (and switch to a gel unit like Chris
Winkley did) to give a bit more room for a gentler bend coming out
of the throttle body...  And if there's room, I'll install a Super
eRAM (but I may have to settle for the standard eRAM, which is 2
inches shorter).  I'll keep you posted, with Dyno results, of
course...

Oh, and BTW, Mark's Dad (another engineering genius!) did some
testing with a smooth tube intake and found that a 'deflector',
installed at the bend just before the throttle body, helped a lot to
minimize airflow turbulence there...  Anyone looking to experiment
can email me privately and I'll send you a diagram...  And if anyone
wants to chip in some expertise on dealing with moving the MAS, I
could use the input--  my background with NASA was in Flight Test
(Aeronautical), not Systems (Electrical)...

Best,

Forrest



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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:29:54 -0800
From: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)

Curious.

Whats the loss with just the rollers decelerating by themselves?

Since theres no such thing perfect bearings..etc..Id like to see how much Hp it
takes to maintain a constant velocity for  four 1000lb (or so) dyno drums.

Is that figured into the math?

- -----Original Message-----
From: R.G. [mailto:robby@freesurf.ch]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 12:34 PM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)


EE yes, but I had a window place during physics, LOL. Matt Jannusch is very
right in his descriptions as it's simply physics what is going on here.

In short, drivetrain loss is dynamic BUT it relates on a lot stuff ! Looking
at the dyno runs one must know that the tests have been done in 4th gear.
The easist calculation is : the higher the speed the more the loss. But it
is not linear as the rolling friction relates on the tires, the weight of
the wheel/tires (the wider the worser !) the oil temp, the bearings and
more. Please note, the loss is tested with the clutch pressed and the tranny
put to neutral to get the real loss of tranny and transfer case, i.e. the
drive train.

The only percentage you can tell is at the peak horsepower. And this is then
very related to the car tested and therefore you can only say that the loss
is about 30% when measuring the peak hp at the same rpm/speed for each other
car. But if you change the exhaust, you may shift the power band and the
percentage loss at the same rpm as before is lower or higher.

To summerize the stuff : The drivetrain loss is a non-linear power curve
that follows the rpm/speed band. It is not calculateable as there are too
many variables.  A % for the loss is only a very rough estimate that depends
on the rpm. If the same car produces 400hp at 6000 and the loss is 120hp the
loss is still the same with the same drivetrain but with an engine making
500hp at the same rpm.

Later,
Roger
93'3000GT TT

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, 8 Nov 1999 16:38:43 -0500
From: "Mark Elkin" <markelkin@mindspring.com>
Subject: FW: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

I'm not an engineer, but I'll try to clarify my thinking...

Drag on a drivetrain is often expressed as a percentage of output power from
the engine.  If your motor is putting out 320 HP (stock for '94-99 3/S cars)
and on the dyno you measure 240 HP then theoretically at your HP peak you
are seeing a 25% drivetrain loss (240/320), assuming that your motor
actually makes 320 HP.

Now if you pump up your motor so it is outputting 800 HP, will your dyno run
indicate 740 HP or will it indicate 600 HP?  I'm going to put my money on
740 HP.

>>>Matt, I agree with you...My point was that losses through the powertrain
are not a constant.  I seems as though they will vary according to rpm of
the moving parts of the powertrain....and as makes sense, not the hp of the
motor.

The frictional and inertial losses shouldn't increase in proportion to the
amount of power being input to the system.  They should remain the same as
it takes a certain amount of work to cause the rotation of the parts and
overcome any other frictional losses.

To answer Mark's first question:

Does it take 99hp to get the car rolling?  No.  It takes 99hp to maintain
the amount of power and speed transmitted to the dyno rollers at the time
the measurement was taken.  These losses will be a lot lower at slower
speeds.

>>>I agree again...I would assume that the hp loss through the powertrain
could be graphed as a curve which would vary with rpm of the moving parts of
the powertrain.  I believe that we are saying the same thing but calling it
two different things....The loss of hp is not a constant(static), but varies
(dynamic)with rpm of the powertrain--not with hp of the motor.  But, it is
also not loss that can be correlated directly with hp of the motor.

Not saying that's the case, but I'm not seeing opposing views yet...

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

- -Mark
'96 3KGT VR4
(Still waiting for an engineer to blow mine and Matt's above discussion out
of the water!)

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:43:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Wise <diranged@hearme.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)

Ok, Now i'm confused! :) Lets say, my car (93 Vr-4) dynos in at 200HP at
the wheels (may be a bit low, just a guess) @ 6500 RPM (random number).
Now I make some upgrades, exhaust, boost controller, etc, and I am making
400 (crank) horse power @ 6500 rpm. In MY opinion, I would be making 264
wheel hp, NOT 300 wheel HP.

- --Matt Wise
*NOC Admin*
(650) 429 3751

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, R.G. wrote:

> EE yes, but I had a window place during physics, LOL. Matt Jannusch is very
> right in his descriptions as it's simply physics what is going on here.
>
> In short, drivetrain loss is dynamic BUT it relates on a lot stuff ! Looking
> at the dyno runs one must know that the tests have been done in 4th gear.
> The easist calculation is : the higher the speed the more the loss. But it
> is not linear as the rolling friction relates on the tires, the weight of
> the wheel/tires (the wider the worser !) the oil temp, the bearings and
> more. Please note, the loss is tested with the clutch pressed and the tranny
> put to neutral to get the real loss of tranny and transfer case, i.e. the
> drive train.
>
> The only percentage you can tell is at the peak horsepower. And this is then
> very related to the car tested and therefore you can only say that the loss
> is about 30% when measuring the peak hp at the same rpm/speed for each other
> car. But if you change the exhaust, you may shift the power band and the
> percentage loss at the same rpm as before is lower or higher.
>
> To summerize the stuff : The drivetrain loss is a non-linear power curve
> that follows the rpm/speed band. It is not calculateable as there are too
> many variables.  A % for the loss is only a very rough estimate that depends
> on the rpm. If the same car produces 400hp at 6000 and the loss is 120hp the
> loss is still the same with the same drivetrain but with an engine making
> 500hp at the same rpm.
>
> Later,
> Roger
> 93'3000GT TT
>
> 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, 08 Nov 1999 13:44:33 -0800
From: Ken Middaugh <Kenneth.Middaugh@gat.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)

"Mohler, Jeff" wrote:
>
> Curious.
>
> Whats the loss with just the rollers decelerating by themselves?
>
> Since theres no such thing perfect bearings..etc..Id like to see how much Hp it
> takes to maintain a constant velocity for  four 1000lb (or so) dyno drums.
>
> Is that figured into the math?

Yes.  The dyno rollers should regularly be calibrated.  The dynos are
electrically loaded so that the electrical load plus the dyno roller friction &
inertia is as close-as-possible to the forces the car experiences on the road
(wind resistance, 4 rolling wheels).  When my main customer was CARB, they were
performing numerous calibrations including dyno roller once a week.

- --
I'm just driving this way to piss you off!

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, 8 Nov 1999 13:47:14 -0800
From: Chris Winkley <cwinkley@plaza.ds.adp.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Test for dying clutch?

Erik...

You're diagnosis of the slip in 2nd gear at 7 mph sounds accurate to me.
However, an inch of travel difference since what was new? The car? That
would be predictable. What I've always done to check clutch condition when
buying a used vehicle is to engage 2nd gear from a standstill. A badly worn
clutch will certainly slip under that condition.

Get ready for a new clutch!!!

Looking forward...Chris

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gross, Erik [mailto:erik.gross@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 1:15 PM
To: 'Team3S List'
Subject: Team3S: Test for dying clutch?

Hey guys,

Quick question:

How do you test a clutch you suspect may be on the verge of wearing out?


Things I've noticed:

* Engagement point has migrated upward significantly (only 1" or so
from top of pedal travel) since it was new
* Clutch "feel" is pretty soft/forgiving lately
* It *might* have slipped slightly today...
Slowing down for traffic in 2nd, going about 7mph.
Too lazy to go for 1st, so I just accelerated when traffic moved.
Not flooring it, but on the throttle a bit. 
Felt a very slight slip as I accelerated.
Car seemed to drive normally after that.

So does that sound conclusive to you?  If it's going, I guess I should
probably make an appointment to get it replaced now, but I don't want to
jump the gun.  I could adjust the pedal so the engagement point is farther
down, but I don't want to simply mask the problem for a few days if the
clutch is going...

- --Erik

- ------                                             ----------
Erik Gross                                         DuPont, WA
'95 Pearl White 3000GT (NA, DOHC, 5-speed)          63,000 mi
Firestone Firehawk 245/50/ZR16 tires, stock wheels
Magnacor KV85 spark plug wires, NGK plugs @ 0.040"
K&N FIPK (57-1500), resonator intact
Mobil 1 10W30 Synthetic w/ OEM oil filter
***No more ticking lash adjusters!  Treated with GM EOS, BG
   44K FI cleaner. Change oil every 2000mi, filter 4000mi ***
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:47:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Wise <diranged@hearme.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

I understand the idea that you loose a specific amount of HP, it just
doesnt seem right.. but so far no one has said any different, so maybe you
guys are right. :)

- --Matt Wise
*NOC Admin*
(650) 429 3751

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Ken Middaugh wrote:

>
> > That doesnt make sense to me... I've NEVER heard of drivetrain loss being
> > measured as a streight amount of HP loss. Its ALWAYS been (as far as I
> > remember) thought of as a percentage.
>
> Sure, it often is expressed as a percentage.  But the complete description is "a
> percentage of the stock flywheel HP".  You can't say it is a percentage unless
> you say what it is a percentage of.  In reality, loss is a constant regardless
> of the engine flywheel HP. 
>
> Hopefully this example will illustrate the pitfall of using loss as a
> percentage.  Say someone (me:)) has a G-Tech Pro.  They measure a wheel HP of
> 201 on a stock 1st gen.  So to calculate engine flywheel HP, they use the
> formula:  flywheel HP = wheel HP / (1 - loss), or 201 / ( 1 - .33 ) = 300.  That
> answer looks good and is indeed correct because the loss is 33% of 300 HP.  Now
> they make some mods, K&N FIPK bleeder valve, then measure 260 wheel HP.  Using
> the above incorrect assumption and formula, they would erroneously calculate the
> flywheel HP as 260 / ( 1 - .33 ) = 388.  The correct formula is:  wheel HP +
> loss HP = flywheel HP, or 260 + 99 = 359.
>
> I hope that clarifies things a bit,
> Ken

> > --Matt Wise
> > *NOC Admin*
> > (650) 429 3751
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Ken Middaugh wrote:
> >
> > > Most all questions have been answered, but here is one that puzzled me for a
> > > while.
> > >
> > > > 6) I've heard that our cars loose %33 through the drivetrain... Is that
> > > > accurate? If so, how much does a smaller pulley help?
> > >
> > > Roger, Jim, & Mikael measured drivetrain loss on an AWD dyno earlier this year
> > > to be about 99 HP.  Loss is 99 HP if your engine is stock or modified to 600HP.
> > > Thus you don't want to mention drivetrain loss as a percentage unless you also
> > > include the flywheel HP.
> > >
> > > e.g.  99/300 = 33% loss
> > >         99/600 = 16.5% loss
> > >
> > > Enjoy your new VR4!
> > >
> > > --
> > > I'm just driving this way to piss you off!
> > >
> > > Ken Middaugh          (858) 455-4510
> > > General Atomics
> > > San Diego
> > >
> >
> > For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
>
> --
> I'm just driving this way to piss you off!
>
> 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, 8 Nov 1999 13:54:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Wise <diranged@hearme.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: New To List/Few Questions..

I've got an idea... Has anyone here dyno'd there car after modifying them?
Lets look at the differences..

- --Matt Wise
*NOC Admin*
(650) 429 3751

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Matt Wise wrote:

> I understand the idea that you loose a specific amount of HP, it just
> doesnt seem right.. but so far no one has said any different, so maybe you
> guys are right. :)
>
> --Matt Wise
> *NOC Admin*
> (650) 429 3751
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Ken Middaugh wrote:
>
> >
> > > That doesnt make sense to me... I've NEVER heard of drivetrain loss being
> > > measured as a streight amount of HP loss. Its ALWAYS been (as far as I
> > > remember) thought of as a percentage.
> >
> > Sure, it often is expressed as a percentage.  But the complete description is "a
> > percentage of the stock flywheel HP".  You can't say it is a percentage unless
> > you say what it is a percentage of.  In reality, loss is a constant regardless
> > of the engine flywheel HP. 
> >
> > Hopefully this example will illustrate the pitfall of using loss as a
> > percentage.  Say someone (me:)) has a G-Tech Pro.  They measure a wheel HP of
> > 201 on a stock 1st gen.  So to calculate engine flywheel HP, they use the
> > formula:  flywheel HP = wheel HP / (1 - loss), or 201 / ( 1 - .33 ) = 300.  That
> > answer looks good and is indeed correct because the loss is 33% of 300 HP.  Now
> > they make some mods, K&N FIPK bleeder valve, then measure 260 wheel HP.  Using
> > the above incorrect assumption and formula, they would erroneously calculate the
> > flywheel HP as 260 / ( 1 - .33 ) = 388.  The correct formula is:  wheel HP +
> > loss HP = flywheel HP, or 260 + 99 = 359.
> >
> > I hope that clarifies things a bit,
> > Ken
> > 
> > > --Matt Wise
> > > *NOC Admin*
> > > (650) 429 3751
> > >
> > > On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Ken Middaugh wrote:
> > >
> > > > Most all questions have been answered, but here is one that puzzled me for a
> > > > while.
> > > >
> > > > > 6) I've heard that our cars loose %33 through the drivetrain... Is that
> > > > > accurate? If so, how much does a smaller pulley help?
> > > >
> > > > Roger, Jim, & Mikael measured drivetrain loss on an AWD dyno earlier this year
> > > > to be about 99 HP.  Loss is 99 HP if your engine is stock or modified to 600HP.
> > > > Thus you don't want to mention drivetrain loss as a percentage unless you also
> > > > include the flywheel HP.
> > > >
> > > > e.g.  99/300 = 33% loss
> > > >         99/600 = 16.5% loss
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy your new VR4!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > I'm just driving this way to piss you off!
> > > >
> > > > Ken Middaugh          (858) 455-4510
> > > > General Atomics
> > > > San Diego
> > > >
> > >
> > > For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
> >
> > --
> > I'm just driving this way to piss you off!
> >
> > 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, 8 Nov 1999 15:59:24 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)

> Whats the loss with just the rollers decelerating by themselves?
>
> Since theres no such thing perfect bearings..etc..Id like to
> see how much Hp it takes to maintain a constant velocity for
> four 1000lb (or so) dyno drums.
>
> Is that figured into the math?

The dyno is calibrated periodically to measure its losses and those losses  are removed from the input power figure so you are only measuring the power being applied to the rollers.

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:02:41 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)

> Ok, Now i'm confused! :) Lets say, my car (93 Vr-4) dynos in
> at 200HP at the wheels (may be a bit low, just a guess) @
> 6500 RPM (random number).  Now I make some upgrades,
> exhaust, boost controller, etc, and I am making 400 (crank)
> horse power @ 6500 rpm. In MY opinion, I would be making 264
> wheel hp, NOT 300 wheel HP.

No, you should see 300 HP on the dyno.  If you increase the power of your motor, why would frictional/inertial losses increase?  Did the density of your driveshaft increase?  Did the laws of physics change to raise the inertial constant of rotational mass?

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:16:10 -0800
From: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)

I view intertial mass of a drivetrain as a torque issue, not HP.  I cant wait to
slap a solid shaft on the car, maybe save ohh..25-30lbs easy.  Should make
significant torque increases over the spoolup ROM range under WOT.

As power increases, the load on gear and bearing faces increases, which raises
loss percentages.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Matt Jannusch [mailto:MAJ@BigCharts.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:03 PM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject: RE: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)


> Ok, Now i'm confused! :) Lets say, my car (93 Vr-4) dynos in
> at 200HP at the wheels (may be a bit low, just a guess) @
> 6500 RPM (random number).  Now I make some upgrades,
> exhaust, boost controller, etc, and I am making 400 (crank)
> horse power @ 6500 rpm. In MY opinion, I would be making 264
> wheel hp, NOT 300 wheel HP.

No, you should see 300 HP on the dyno.  If you increase the power of your motor,
why would frictional/inertial losses increase?  Did the density of your
driveshaft increase?  Did the laws of physics change to raise the inertial
constant of rotational mass?

- -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, 8 Nov 1999 14:29:02 -0800
From: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@netapp.com>
Subject: Team3S: Rear Spoiler/Active Aero

Has anybody proven any functional downforce provided in normal/raised mode on
the rear wing?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:29:23 PST
From: "Greg Gonzales" <greggonzo1@hotmail.com>
Subject: Team3S: Best Boost Controller for the buck

I would like to know which is the best boost controller for the buck and
why.

I want something that is easy to install but gives me the best power.

Any suggestions?
TIA
Greg 92 RT TT

______________________________________________________
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, 8 Nov 1999 23:11:47 +0100
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)

> Whats the loss with just the rollers decelerating by themselves?

The drums are having an exact weight and are balanced. The dyno knows the
loss of them and reagrds this too.

> Since theres no such thing perfect bearings..etc..Id like to see how much
Hp it
> takes to maintain a constant velocity for  four 1000lb (or so) dyno drums.

The drums are connected to e-motors that makes the loss of the drums
negligible. This is the big advantage of expensive dynos compared to the
cheaper dynojets.

Roger
93'3000GT TT


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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:30:43 +0100
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss (was: new..)

> Ok, Now i'm confused! :) Lets say, my car (93 Vr-4) dynos in at 200HP at
> the wheels (may be a bit low, just a guess) @ 6500 RPM (random number).
> Now I make some upgrades, exhaust, boost controller, etc, and I am making
> 400 (crank) horse power @ 6500 rpm. In MY opinion, I would be making 264
> wheel hp, NOT 300 wheel HP.

You are thinking the wrong way (it's not that complicated) When you are
making 200hp at the wheels at @6500 then the measured loss may be 100hp.
This results in 300hp at the crank @ 6500. Don't think in %, just forget it.

Now you mod the car up to 250hp at the wheels @6500 then the loss is still
100hp and the result is 350hp @ 6500.

My dyno runs where with different wheels/tires and even on one run after the
other the tires where hotter and the result was a different loss. But the
final result was the same because the measured wheel hp was lower as the
loss was higher. Sounds cool but for me the outcome was important.

As most of us don't have the chance to go to a dyno, we have to get an
estimate for the loss. And in our case, this is about 33% in 4th at around
6000rpm. This equals to 100hp and on a car dynoed 450hp at the crank the
loss was still around 100hp and not 30% ! BUT if the hp was measured at 7000
and not 6000, the result is different again as the higher the rpm the higher
the loss.

Roger
93'3000GT TT

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:34:49 +0100
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Any specific instructions on 3S to do a compression test

> It's probably time for a compression test..
>
> And specific instructions for the Dodge ?

No, just a normal test and a leak down test if necessary. Just make sure the
ignition is not firing and the injectors are not spraying. We applied
pressure to the plugholes and listened to the sound. We heard some whistle
comming from the valves and then runned some injector cleaner. No whistle
anymore as the carbon deposits went off then. The simpler method was
cranking the engine about 6 times to measure the compression. My problems
where the same at any temperature.

Good luck,
Roger
93'3000GT TT


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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:38:09 -0800
From: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Best Boost Controller for the buck

Easy, DYI bleeder valve.

$2, and only miniscule 1/4mi time differences from a $500 electronic unit.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Greg Gonzales [mailto:greggonzo1@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:29 PM
To: stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com
Subject: Team3S: Best Boost Controller for the buck


I would like to know which is the best boost controller for the buck and
why.

I want something that is easy to install but gives me the best power.

Any suggestions?
TIA
Greg 92 RT TT

______________________________________________________
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, 8 Nov 1999 23:38:09 +0100
From: "R.G." <robby@freesurf.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Rear Spoiler/Active Aero

Yes, drive 174mph and switch it on/off ... you will keep it on as the car
started to become scary in a light turn !


> Has anybody proven any functional downforce provided in normal/raised mode
on
> the rear wing?

Roger
93'3000GT TT ... Autobahn proven

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:41:50 -0800
From: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Rear Spoiler/Active Aero

*chuckle*

You mean off/on yes?

- -----Original Message-----
From: R.G. [mailto:robby@freesurf.ch]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:38 PM
To: Mohler, Jeff; '3s'
Subject: Re: Team3S: Rear Spoiler/Active Aero


Yes, drive 174mph and switch it on/off ... you will keep it on as the car
started to become scary in a light turn !


> Has anybody proven any functional downforce provided in normal/raised mode
on
> the rear wing?

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:01:51 -0600
From: "Benson \"elmagoo\" Russell" <benson@2015.com>
Subject: Team3S: Rear Spoiler/Active Aero

>Has anybody proven any functional downforce provided in normal/raised mode
on
>the rear wing?

I'm wondering if the active aero system is even worth anything at all (as in
does it provide any benefits, or is it just a gimmickie thing)?  Someone on
an earlier post regarding weight said that the system weighs about 50 lbs,
and if it really doesn't do much, wouldn't it be better to just dump the
thing in favor of some type of permanent air-scoop to make the car lighter
(because we all know how 'light' our cars already are ;)p?


Latuh fuh U,
Benson
benson@2015.com

"-Do you ever have second thoughts?
- -When do I ever have first thoughts?"

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:46:09 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Best Boost Controller for the buck

> I would like to know which is the best boost controller for
> the buck and why.
> I want something that is easy to install but gives me the
> best power.

Hallman boost controller is by far the best bang for the buck.  If you don't need fancy in-cockpit boost control, then you set it and forget it.  It is mechanical in nature, and set up to provide maximum spoolup by keeping the wastegates closed as long as possible before opening them to control boost.  Its a very effective boost controller for $90.  The only drawback is that it isn't adjustable from inside the car.

http://www.buschurracing.com/

Look under the "prices" section.  It actually isn't a bleeder-type, but rather an adjustable restriction type.

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:00:49 -0800
From: "Bob Forrest" <bf@bobforrest.com>
Subject: Team3S: Drivetrain loss, Dyno info... (Notes from a Guru)

I've been getting as confused as the rest of you about this entire
subject, so I called Terry, the "Dyno Guru" over at Frey Racing.
He's been doing Winston Cup cars for about 20 years, so I figured he
might have some insight...  His job is to put a car on the dynos and
determine what the drivetrain losses are, and then work at
reducing... minimizing those losses.

The Dyno Jet he uses is called an inertial dyno or "chassis dyno",
(and yes, it's calibrated weekly for accuracy).  There are also
other types (electrical dyno, water dyno...).  All dynos do the same
thing- measure RPM, speed, distance, use known factors for the dyno
(load, friction, inertia...), and calculate a figure from all of
those parameters that is a pretty accurate estimate of HP to the
road.  According to Terry, there is no exact formula that is either
a fixed number or a fixed percentage of drivetrain loss, because it
is 'machine specific', i.e., every car is different.  The drivetrain
losses depend on myriad factors, including type of clutch,
driveshaft, tires, engine wear, and even the type of oil that you
use.  In other words, the more modded you are, the better chance
there is that your losses (HP or %) are less than stock for the same
vehicle.  And the ONLY way to determine the EXACT drivetrain loss
for your car is to do a dyno run on a "chassis dyno" and then take
the engine out and do a run on an "engine dyno".  That will tell you
the horsepower lost to the drivetrain.

For the sake of simplicity (and cost, obviously), there ARE
arbitrary figures used to 'guesstimate' percentage losses for
different types of cars:

20% for standard passenger cars
15% for performance cars
12% for race-prepared cars

When he dynoed my car (before mods), he used a figure of 15% (not
knowing the rated HP for the Stealth), and sure enough, the dyno
figure was EXACTLY 15% less than the advertised HP from Dodge.

The HP loss can be shown in HP or as a percentage, says Terry, but
it really doesn't matter how it's expressed-- it's not important.
The only thing that IS important is minimizing those losses to get
the most out of your car.

Best,

Forrest


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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:08:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Wise <diranged@hearme.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Drivetrain loss, Dyno info... (Notes from a Guru)

Thank you.. Everything makes sense..  I agree with everything you said,
and we finally have some info from a professional :)

- --Matt Wise
*NOC Admin*
(650) 429 3751

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Bob Forrest wrote:

> I've been getting as confused as the rest of you about this entire
> subject, so I called Terry, the "Dyno Guru" over at Frey Racing.
> He's been doing Winston Cup cars for about 20 years, so I figured he
> might have some insight...  His job is to put a car on the dynos and
> determine what the drivetrain losses are, and then work at
> reducing... minimizing those losses.
>
> The Dyno Jet he uses is called an inertial dyno or "chassis dyno",
> (and yes, it's calibrated weekly for accuracy).  There are also
> other types (electrical dyno, water dyno...).  All dynos do the same
> thing- measure RPM, speed, distance, use known factors for the dyno
> (load, friction, inertia...), and calculate a figure from all of
> those parameters that is a pretty accurate estimate of HP to the
> road.  According to Terry, there is no exact formula that is either
> a fixed number or a fixed percentage of drivetrain loss, because it
> is 'machine specific', i.e., every car is different.  The drivetrain
> losses depend on myriad factors, including type of clutch,
> driveshaft, tires, engine wear, and even the type of oil that you
> use.  In other words, the more modded you are, the better chance
> there is that your losses (HP or %) are less than stock for the same
> vehicle.  And the ONLY way to determine the EXACT drivetrain loss
> for your car is to do a dyno run on a "chassis dyno" and then take
> the engine out and do a run on an "engine dyno".  That will tell you
> the horsepower lost to the drivetrain.
>
> For the sake of simplicity (and cost, obviously), there ARE
> arbitrary figures used to 'guesstimate' percentage losses for
> different types of cars:
>
> 20% for standard passenger cars
> 15% for performance cars
> 12% for race-prepared cars
>
> When he dynoed my car (before mods), he used a figure of 15% (not
> knowing the rated HP for the Stealth), and sure enough, the dyno
> figure was EXACTLY 15% less than the advertised HP from Dodge.
>
> The HP loss can be shown in HP or as a percentage, says Terry, but
> it really doesn't matter how it's expressed-- it's not important.
> The only thing that IS important is minimizing those losses to get
> the most out of your car.
>
> Best,
>
> Forrest
>
>
> 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, 08 Nov 1999 17:48:34 -0600
From: Trevor James <Trevor@kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Best Boost Controller for the buck

There's another couple drawbacks to a manual bleeder. The boost will never build as fast as possible. The wastegates will only (relatively) creep open compared to an electronic unit which will wait until the very last second to slam open the wastegates. You will also not have solid boost control from one day to the next. One afternoon you can bust your butt setting it to exactly 15 psi. The next morning on the drive to
work it will show higher because of the cooler temperatures. It will also vary with barometric pressure.

If you want the best quarter mile times get an electronic unit. If you want the easiest of the electronic units get a HKS EVC IV for about $475.

Trevor
96 Firestorm Red R/T TT
12.86@107.2
12.68@111.4-0 to 60 4.14 Gtech
HKS EVC IV@1.00 Bar, Accel Wires, Plugs@.034, Borla, K&N FIPK
92 GMC Typhoon
12.10@97.4-0 to 60 5.34 Gtech


Matt Jannusch wrote:

> > I would like to know which is the best boost controller for
> > the buck and why.
> > I want something that is easy to install but gives me the
> > best power.
>
> Hallman boost controller is by far the best bang for the buck.  If you don't need fancy in-cockpit boost control, then you set it and forget it.  It is mechanical in nature, and set up to provide maximum spoolup by keeping the wastegates closed as long as possible before opening them to control boost.  Its a very effective boost controller for $90.  The only drawback is that it isn't adjustable from inside the car.
>
> http://www.buschurracing.com/
>
> Look under the "prices" section.  It actually isn't a bleeder-type, but rather an adjustable restriction type.
>
> -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, 8 Nov 1999 19:01:16 -0500
From: "Dennis Moore" <stealth@quixnet.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Redline MTL or MT-90???

How about both?

The tech at Redline recommended a blend of 1 qt. MT-90 and 2 qts. MTL in the
transaxle.  I just got my car back from the shop where they put that mix in
for me.  (Yes, I got the extra back...)  I'll let folks know how it works
out, but so far so good.

Dennis Moore
stealth@quixnet.net
93 Stealth ES

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Schwartz <jeff.schwartz@citicorp.com>
To: 3000GT Team3: <stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 3:37 PM
Subject: Team3S: Redline MTL or MT-90???


> What does everyone recommend for use in the Transmission,
> Transfer Case, and Rear Axel.  I get different stories from
> different speed shops.  I have a 95 VR4.
>


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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:13:55 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Best Boost Controller for the buck

> There's another couple drawbacks to a manual bleeder. The
> boost will never build as fast as possible. The wastegates
> will only (relatively) creep open compared to an electronic
> unit which will wait until the very last second to slam open
> the wastegates. You will also not have solid boost control
> from one day to the next. One afternoon you can bust your
> butt setting it to exactly 15 psi. The next morning on the drive to
> work it will show higher because of the cooler temperatures.
> It will also vary with barometric pressure.

Not true with the Hallman.  The behavior is exactly the same as with the expen$ive HK$ unit.  Gates stay closed until boost target is reached, and then are opened quickly.  Like I said, it isn't a bleeder, it is a pressure restriction valve.  Pressure to the wastegates is held back until boost reaches the preset level and only then is sent to the wastegate actuators.

> If you want the best quarter mile times get an electronic
> unit. If you want the easiest of the electronic units get a
> HKS EVC IV for about $475.

I hate my EVC IV.  It sucks, sucks, sucks.  Boost control is pretty unstable, and it overshoots the boost target badly.  Luckily I have water injection, so I can live with it.

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:15:56 -0600
From: "Owens, Trent L." <Trent.Owens@destia.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????

I have narrowed it down to one of 2-3 things:

1.  I screwed up an injector wire(s) while removing or assembling the intake
plenum.

2.  Plug wire is somehow messed up.

3.  Spark plug is broken.

Now, Jeff suggested that I pull the codes from the ECU to determine exactly
what the problem is.  I am all for this because I have taken everything
apart 3 times now!  However he wasn't sure exactly which pin to ground to
make the check engine light flash the code.  Could someone please help me
with this?  I have a 95 RT TT.  I checked and it had the big 16 pin OBD
connector.

Thanks in advance for your help!
Trent





- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Schwartz [mailto:jeff.schwartz@citicorp.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:34 PM
To: 'stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com'
Subject: Re: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????


First thing I would do is to get the code from the check engine light. 
There is a pin, (I have to look up which pin) on the OBD connector
which when you short it to ground, the check engine light will flash
with the code for the problem.  The codes are in the repair manual, or
I might have them, I have to look. 
I had the exact same problem and it turned out to be a wire going to
one of the rear fuel injectors had poped out just enough not to make
a connection.  I had to use epoxy to clue the wire back in or buy a
new fuel injector connector.  Just a guess, but check all the wiring
to the injectors coz they are easy to knock out while changing the
plugs.

- --
Jeff Schwartz
1995 Panama Green Pearl VR4
Borla, K&N, and Magnecors

Owens, Trent L. wrote:
>
> Hey guys...  I have one for ya!
>
> Yesterday I was installing my new Apexi R BC.  Using Brian's instructions
I
> pulled the plugs and regapped the NGK's to .034.  I put everything back
> together and installed the BC.
>
> Installing the BC:
>
> I capped the bottom line of the stock solenoid.  Then I routed the line
from
> the Y-pipe to "NC" on the BC solenoid.  (NC is the IN on the solenoid)
Then
> I routed the "COM" or OUT on the BC solenoid to a port on the 4-way.
>
> Once I fished everything and double checked it all.....  I started the
car.
> WHAT???  Its missing!  And the check engine light it on....  I go back and
> recheck everything.  Everything seems to be connected.  Now...  Insert
> favorite four letter words!!!!
>
> I then go back and remover the intake and recheck all the plugs and
wires...
> Reassymble....  Same thing!!  I return to the stock BC to the stock
> setup...and its still missing with the check engine light ON!  More four
> letter words!
>
> Anybody have any advice or have ran into this problem before?  I worked
with
> the battery disconnected and reset the ECU each time I changed something.
>
> Thanks for your help!!!
>
> Trent Owens
> 95 RT TT
>
> Totally stock except for .34 NGK's.  And if I can get this taken care of..
> Apexi-R BC.
>
> For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is
http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is
http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:21:15 -0600
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????

> Now, Jeff suggested that I pull the codes from the ECU to
> determine exactly what the problem is.  I am all for this
> because I have taken everything apart 3 times now!
> However he wasn't sure exactly which pin to ground to
> make the check engine light flash the code.  Could someone
> please help me with this?  I have a 95 RT TT.  I checked
> and it had the big 16 pin OBD connector.

I think you can actually have it flash the codes on the
check engine light.  If it is possible on these cars, you
do the following with the ignition key:

on
off
on
off
on

...all within 5 seconds.  You don't have to start the car, just toggle the key.  It should flash out the codes for you after the sequence is entered.  Works on 2G Eclipse/Talons and other Mitsu ECU cars like the Dodge Avenger.  Haven't tried it on my 3000, but it has worked on other modern Mitsu-ECU cars.  Give it a try...

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 01:09:12 +0100
From: "R.G." <robby@swissonline.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Rear Spoiler/Active Aero

> >Has anybody proven any functional downforce provided in normal/raised mode
> on
> >the rear wing?
>
> I'm wondering if the active aero system is even worth anything at all

Again, drive the car at very high speed and switch the AA on and off. You'll
learn what downforce means :)

Roger
93'3000GT TT


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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 19:34:10 -0800
From: "Sam Shelat" <sshelat@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????

I would think it has nothing to do with your boost controller install, since
the problem
manifested itself even with the stock solenoid reconnected.  I would say
first, check
and make sure all your plug wires are down all the way on the plugs and coil
packs,
and also make sure the correct wires are on the correct spot!!  Then if all
is well,
listen for vacuum leaks on the manifold because the gasket may not have
seated properly
and you may have a leak.  Also make sure all your injector harnesses are
back together
all the way (if you disconnected them).  Did you also cap the stock line
coming from the H-connect
to the bottom of solenoid?

Sam

- -----Original Message-----
From: Owens, Trent L. <Trent.Owens@destia.com>
To: 'stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com' <stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:00 AM
Subject: Team3S: Missing & Check engine????


>Hey guys...  I have one for ya!
>
>Yesterday I was installing my new Apexi R BC.  Using Brian's instructions I
>pulled the plugs and regapped the NGK's to .034.  I put everything back
>together and installed the BC.
>
>Installing the BC:
>
>I capped the bottom line of the stock solenoid.  Then I routed the line
from
>the Y-pipe to "NC" on the BC solenoid.  (NC is the IN on the solenoid)
Then
>I routed the "COM" or OUT on the BC solenoid to a port on the 4-way.
>
>Once I fished everything and double checked it all.....  I started the car.
>WHAT???  Its missing!  And the check engine light it on....  I go back and
>recheck everything.  Everything seems to be connected.  Now...  Insert
>favorite four letter words!!!!
>
>I then go back and remover the intake and recheck all the plugs and
wires...
>Reassymble....  Same thing!!  I return to the stock BC to the stock
>setup...and its still missing with the check engine light ON!  More four
>letter words!
>
>Anybody have any advice or have ran into this problem before?  I worked
with
>the battery disconnected and reset the ECU each time I changed something.
>
>Thanks for your help!!!
>
>Trent Owens
>95 RT TT
>
>Totally stock except for .34 NGK's.  And if I can get this taken care of..
>Apexi-R BC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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, 8 Nov 1999 17:11:50 -0800
From: "Darcy Gunnlaugson" <wce@telus.net>
Subject: Team3S: Boost Controllers

You generally get what you pay for. However, if you go with the cheap seat,
it will eventually cost you money rather than save you money. Go with
something like say, the new SAVC-R,  and you will have a quality control
unit and a enclave of people here who have installed to help you do the
same. It can be had for a  lot less than retail if you get in on a group
purchase. My advice, shop around and get the best. Listen to snake oil
salesmen and you are bound to be unhappy in the end. I for one do not relish
a rebuild in these cars because overboost or detonation blew apart the
rings/pistons. In the end, take all the advise you can get and make up your
own mind.

Best

Darc

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:27:15 -0800
From: "Darcy Gunnlaugson" <wce@telus.net>
Subject: Team3S: Friction

Hey boys, enough already. You're plugging up my email with posts on
redundancy. Common sense dictates that a loss of horsepower to friction does
not increase significantly as you increase the horsepower. It's something
like dropping a feather and a rock at the same time. Although you might like
to think differently, they both reach the floor at about the same time. A
different force but an applicable example. So can we move on to something of
greater significance in the 3S world. Please. This issue has been addressed
enough.

BTW, please delete those aspects of the post you are responding to which do
not need to be reposted with your response.

Best

Darc

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:51:34 EST
From: Muratokcu@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: Aero downforce

How about stealth? does the aero aids perform any useful function, like
downforce? or are they all look and no go? maybe the designers figured nobody
would need them with 55mph speed limit (they were designing these cars in
late '80's)

I was hoping to roam the Autobahns with my stealth next year. Am I doomed?
anyone with experience?
For subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htm

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:04:12 -0600
From: "Benson \"elmagoo\" Russell" <benson@2015.com>
Subject: Team3S: Aero downforce

OK, so here's an idea (I dunno if it's any good mind you, which is why I'm
asking about it here :).  Wouldn't it just be better to get a new spoiler
(or modify the original) and permanently position it so that it's in the
same position as the active aero is when you're traveling fast enough that
it makes a difference, get an air-damm, and then dump the actual system to
save the weight?  Or would this cause problems when going at lower speeds or
accelerating?

Latuh fuh U,
Benson
benson@2015.com

"-Do you ever have second thoughts?
- -When do I ever have first thoughts?"

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:49:14 -0700
From: "CEskelsen" <cesk@redrock.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Best Boost Controller for the buck

I agree with Matt.  Yes, I had to get out of the car twice to adjust the
valve to get it where I wanted it (1.1 bar).  On installation, Matt
suggested I bypass the stock solenoid completely.  It has been rock solid
for two months now.  I live in the desert where the mornings are 30 degrees
cooler than the afternoons and there in -very- little difference, according
to my GReddy boost gauge and spool up is wonderful.  My buddy has a AVC-R in
his Supra and is disgusted at the thought of how much beer his extra $400
could have bought :)

Cheers,
Cory Eskelsen
96 R/T TT
#416
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Jannusch <MAJ@BigCharts.com>
To: 'Trevor James' <Trevor@kscable.com>
Cc: <stealth-3000gt@list.sirius.com>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Best Boost Controller for the buck


> > There's another couple drawbacks to a manual bleeder. The
> > boost will never build as fast as possible. The wastegates
> > will only (relatively) creep open compared to an electronic
> > unit which will wait until the very last second to slam open
> > the wastegates. You will also not have solid boost control
> > from one day to the next. One afternoon you can bust your
> > butt setting it to exactly 15 psi. The next morning on the drive to
> > work it will show higher because of the cooler temperatures.
> > It will also vary with barometric pressure.
>
> Not true with the Hallman.  The behavior is exactly the same as with the
expen$ive HK$ unit.  Gates stay closed until boost target is reached, and
then are opened quickly.  Like I said, it isn't a bleeder, it is a pressure
restriction valve.  Pressure to the wastegates is held back until boost
reaches the preset level and only then is sent to the wastegate actuators.
>
> > If you want the best quarter mile times get an electronic
> > unit. If you want the easiest of the electronic units get a
> > HKS EVC IV for about $475.
>
> I hate my EVC IV.  It sucks, sucks, sucks.  Boost control is pretty
unstable, and it overshoots the boost target badly.  Luckily I have water
injection, so I can live with it.
>
> -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, 8 Nov 1999 20:59:16 -0800
From: "Darcy Gunnlaugson" <wce@telus.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Aero downforce

Jim Matthews, our European Admin in Germany, is off to Bavaria at the moment
or he'd likely respond personally on his experiences on the Autobahns there
in his Stealth TT. He's had no probs taking it to the max!  However, the
Stealth wing and front air dam are not quite as effective at light speed for
stabilization purposes, as the Mitsu's rear adjustable wing and front
adjustable dam. The latter create more drag, so although "perhaps" you
might go faster in the Stealth  you could also experience more instability.
The latter may cause you to reduce speed to keep within manageable
parameters.

Best

Darc


snip

>I was hoping to roam the Autobahns with my stealth next year. Am I doomed?
>anyone with experience?


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

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

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 23:01:04 -0600
From: xwing <xwing@execpc.com>
Subject: Team3S: Rear spoiler/Active Aero effect

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------21C94F3969F63CE153383C37
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The article on the 3000GT HSX in Motor Trend in 1/90 indicates that car
had downforce of 110 lbs at 'a little over 100mph' with the active rear
wing.  The front spoiler reduced drag enough to offset the penalty of
the raised rear wing.  The 3000GT HSX wing was slightly different, but
the
active surface was about the same size.
Jack T.

- --------------21C94F3969F63CE153383C37
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <33DF4F66.6AB0@execpc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:27:50 -0500
From: xwing <xwing@execpc.com>
Reply-To: xwing@execpc.com
Organization: Exec-PC
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stealth@starnet.net
Subject: Re: Active Aero
References: <UPMAIL02.199707300255340916@msn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Dotur wrote:
> Of course the active air dam would not help handling but it
> could improve aerodynamics by not allowing much wind under the car.
> so, we've got a good plus for the air dam part of AA.  But what I can't
> figure out is the spoiler! 
> I would love to hear educated guesses from anybody
> I'd really like to figure out how the engineering behind this thing works.
> even if it's nothing except
> "turn around and watch the rear spoiler while I active the Active Aero".
- ----------------------------------------------

When the 3000GT VR4 first came out, there were several technical
articles written.  The Actve Aero does work.  Of course, it is not
'maxxed out' because the front airdam if much lower would be destroyed
on a regular basis by curbstops etc.

The front airdam reduces airflow under the car at higher speeds,
decreasing drag.

The rear spoiler in up position creates a higher pressure area on the
rear decklid/window, producing downforce.  At 100mph, it creates 100
pounds of downforce, as I recall.  As speeds increase, downforce
increases.  There are a few articles on top speeds, and one mentioned
that the 3000 VR4 felt the most stable at max speeds, while RX7 and
Supra were not as stable.

The tech article said that the front and rear active aero devices
balance out with regard to total drag--the front airdam reduces drag by
about how much the rear spoiler increases it, so total coefficient of
drag stays about the same BUT with more downforce.  Again, anyone
expecting surface-skimming front airdam and thousands of pounds of
downforce is kidding themselves; but the devices do function as they
are.

Jack Tertadian


- --------------21C94F3969F63CE153383C37--

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

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

End of Team3S Digest V1 #330
****************************

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