--
From:
owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.com
(Team3S Digest)
To:
stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.comSubject:
Team3S Digest V1 #330
Reply-To: stealth-3000gt
Sender:
owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.comErrors-To:
owner-stealth-3000gt-digest@list.sirius.comPrecedence:
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.comSubject: 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.comSubject:
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.htmFor
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.comSubject: 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.comSubject: 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.htmFor
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.htmFor
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.comSubject:
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.htmFor
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.comSubject:
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.htmFor
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.comSubject:
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.htmFor
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.comSubject:
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.htmFor
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.comSubject:
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.htmFor
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.htmFor
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.net93 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.htmFor
subscribe/unsubscribe info, our web page is
http://www.bobforrest.com/Team3S.htmFor
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.htmFor
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.comSubject: 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.comOrganization:
Exec-PC
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:
stealth@starnet.netSubject: 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