Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth Monday, October 1
2001 Volume 01 : Number
633
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 1 Oct 2001 01:07:35 +0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: RX7 injectors to RT TT
The RX7 Injectors of an older model
are exactly the yellow top 720cc we can
use !
Roger
93'3000GT
TT
www.rtec.ch> I am "warring"
the RX7 injectors for a month and there is not any
> significant problem
so far. The true is that I haven't tune the car yet to
> the proper A/F
rates due to the fact that here in PR is not any AWD dyno.
So
> I'm
trying by myself to do it but using APEXi AFC is not so easy. I just
>
purchase a "home dyno" program in order to see power and torque curbs.
I
am
> also considering to get the Dataloger in order to monitor
knocking wile
> tuning. (Any other ideas?) I have to check also fuel
pressures (thanks for
> your idea) due to the fact that I am using the
stock F pump so far. (Witch
I
> think can give me sufficient pressure
@15psi intake)
> If someone needs some of these injectors I can ask the
friend I took mine
> for the price of $300 for 6!!! (Used but
checked)
>
>
> Nikos the Greek
> 92' RT TT 6
Gear
> Puerto Rico
>
> BTW, thanks to whoever gave us the tip
concerning RX7 injectors.
> Always nice to know we have
options.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 01:41:43
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
This is what DIN or
SAE corrections are for ! They take care of this factor.
The losses we
found on the dyno where in between 85 and 105PS :-o
Roger
93'3000GT
TT
www.rtec.ch> The question is
--- what is the loss generated by the front wheels of a
two
> wheel
drive car --- I assume most of the loss at the front is from
tires,
it
> might easily add a loss 3% or more to a two wheel drive
car.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 01:14:49
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Did they sell me the wrong size tire?
Nonono ... studded
tires, never ever use them. The government here striktly
mentions the 3000GT
not to run with "spikes". And 16", what car is this
???
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch- ----- Original Message
-----
From: "Charles J. Williams" <
cwilliam@gci.net>
To: <
team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Monday, October 01, 2001 12:14 AM
Subject: Team3S: Did they sell me the wrong
size tire?
> I didn't get a reply from anybody so I went ahead and
tried them. It's
very
> close if they fit or not. Clearance
between the tire and the bottom of
the
> spring is less than
1/32". Not enough for me to be comfortable with. I
> took the
tire back off.
>
> The tire dealer is going to swap out the tires
for no charge. He
apologized
> for the fact that one of his
people got the size wrong. They seem honest
> about their
mistake.
>
> Charles
> I just bought a set of studded snow
tires for my car. I had them mounted
on
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 01:38:30
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Overheating Problem
Hmm, I can only spread some ideas but do
not have a straight solution.
First, I always follow the direction of the
manual when I refill the
coolant. Maybe not a big deal but I do it that
way.
> First thing we noticed was that it
> sounding like the
coolant was boiling over and getting shot into the
> reservoir tank.
But what we found was that it was shooting out high
> pressure steam that
was causing some of the coolant in the reservoir tank
to
> be displaced
from the dump tube.
Regarding the sympton, this sounds like a typical
stock thermostat, but when
the pump is changed also the thermostat should be
done. I therefore gues it
is ok !?
> Then we also noticed that the
top end tank of the radiator and the upper
> radiator hose was hot but the
bottom radiator hose coming from the
> thermostat housing and the rest of
the radiator was very cold as if no
> coolant had passed through there at
all. At this point it seemed like the
> thermostat was not opening. We
drove it back and proceeded to remove the
> thermostat.
My thoughts
too.
> First thing I notice is that the bottom part of the
thermostat
> housing is very close to bone dry. In fact, looking inside
the housing you
> can see dry coolant residue inside.
Can be from
before the service.
> Also the pipe from the water pump to the
thermostat housing is also bone
dry.
You are speaking of the pipe
under the intake manifold, right ?
> Also with the car on, the
>
pump seemed to move ok without any abnormal noise which indicates the
pump
> was not seized or had failed.
Well you can see if the pump
pulley moves but not if it transports coolant
inside (or the wheel turns
inside)
> Not sure of why the coolant was not circulating, we decided
to put back
> everything together without the thermostat to eliminate the
possibility of
a
> faulty thermostat. We top off the cooling system
with water and take it
for
> a drive.
Again, you follow the
procedure to prime the pump ?
> It also seems more apparent that the
overheating is related to the car's
> position. Driving upwards on a hill
the car would overheat. In a decline
> position, or driving down a hill
the car's temp would return back to
normal.
But do you have enough
coolant in the system ? Sounds like onyl a liter or
so is in there
!??
> But as I
> said before, on vehicle inspection of the pump
showed the pump was in
> satisfactory condition.
I may question
this.
> How else can a water pump fail besides seizing? There also
seems to be no
> leaks coming from the water pump.
IMHO, do a
complete coolant flush. Then do a radiator test (pressure) to see
if the
radiator is able to flow. You can visually inspect this on how fast
the
coolant rinses out on the drain port. Also I'd then pressure-test the
whole
cooling system. As far as I remember there is a procedure in the
manual on
how to do this. My Mitsu dealer does have a special "kit" or so
that such a
test can easily be doen to find leaks or whatever.
A hedagasket failure
would be able to create an overheating situation but
not when the front cyls
are already in the good range. temp would rise but
coolant never
boil.
Sorry, only thoughts, no solutions.
Roger
93'3000GT
TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 18:06:11
-0600
From: "Floyd, Jim" <
Jim_Floyd@maxtor.com>
Subject:
Team3S: OT - Bret Hill, where are you ?
I am sorry to bother everyone
with this, but I can not reach Bret
Hill.
When I reply to his E-mails they
come back with error messages. (see
below)
His phone doesn't answer or
have an answering machine.
As you can see from the message below he has gone
hard ass on us.
He doesn't know we had to re-paint his strut tower
brace.
This is delaying the shipment of 3 braces including mine. We are
not
ripping him off.
Chris is guaranteeing him a perfect
product.
Bret since your phone is not picking up you can call me at
work
303-702-4421.
By the way it is Bureau, not
Burke.
Jim
----- The following addresses had
permanent fatal errors -----
<
bhill@davesworld.net>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to
mx11.davesworld.net.:
>>> RCPT To:<
bhill@davesworld.net>
<<<
550
bhill@davesworld.net...User
unknown
550 <
bhill@davesworld.net>... User
unknown
-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim,
Chris, If I do not receive my strut bar (or my money - all $282.68) by
the
end of this week (i.e. October 5, 2001) I will be forced to turn you
into the
Better Business Burke. It is your choice - get my bar to me or get
me
my money.
Brett Hill
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:54:48
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Drive train loss is a function of
the individual vehicle --- I was under the
impression SAE was more
interested in correcting for altitude, temp,
humidity etc. --- I can't
imagine them trying to account for all the variations
in tire type, drive
train etc.
Jim
Berry
===========================================
- ----- Original
Message -----
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
>
This is what DIN or SAE corrections are for ! They take care of this
factor.
>
> The losses we found on the dyno where in between 85 and
105PS :-o
>
> Roger
> 93'3000GT TT
>
www.rtec.ch>
> > The question is
--- what is the loss generated by the front wheels of a
> two
> >
wheel drive car --- I assume most of the loss at the front is from
tires,
> it
> > might easily add a loss 3% or more to a two wheel
drive car.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 18:30:47
-0700
From: Wayne <
whietala@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
To "estimate" the
drivetrain losses, you just continue to sample (don't
stop the dyno) under
deceleration on the dyno. But lets face it
folks......who cares, road HP is
what matters when you are on the road
stomping a 5.SLOW mustang. The ONLY
WAY to get true engine HP is to put the
engine on an engine dyno. Not many
people want to go through that expense
and
trouble.............
Wayne
At 05:54 PM 9/30/01 , Jim Berry
wrote:
>Drive train loss is a function of the individual vehicle --- I was
under the
>impression SAE was more interested in correcting for altitude,
temp,
>humidity etc. --- I can't imagine them trying to account for all
the
>variations
>in tire type, drive train etc.
>
>Jim
Berry
>===========================================
>----- Original
Message -----
>From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
>
>
> This is what DIN or SAE corrections are for ! They take care of this
> factor.
> >
> > The losses we found on the dyno where
in between 85 and 105PS :-o
> >
> > Roger
> >
93'3000GT TT
> >
www.rtec.ch>
>
> > > The question is --- what is the loss generated by the
front wheels of a
> > two
> > > wheel drive car --- I
assume most of the loss at the front is from tires,
> > it
> >
> might easily add a loss 3% or more to a two wheel drive
car.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 18:40:35
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Wayne
You must have missed
my first message [ see below ] --- you can't sample
wheels that aren't on the
rollers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've
brought up this point several times and have yet to receive an estimate.
With
a two wheel drive car you can measure ½ the drive train loss --- the
front
wheels are stationary and their contribution to the total loss is
ignored,
this is not the case with a four wheel dyno where all four wheels
are included
in the loss measurements.
The question is --- what is the
loss generated by the front wheels of a two
wheel drive car --- I assume most
of the loss at the front is from tires, it
might easily add a loss 3% or more
to a two wheel drive
car.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Berry
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne <
whietala@prodigy.net>
> To
"estimate" the drivetrain losses, you just continue to sample (don't
>
stop the dyno) under deceleration on the dyno. But lets face it
>
folks......who cares, road HP is what matters when you are on the road
>
stomping a 5.SLOW mustang. The ONLY WAY to get true engine HP is to put
the
> engine on an engine dyno. Not many people want to go through that
expense
> and trouble.............
>
> Wayne
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:35:19
-0700 (PDT)
From: Geoff Mohler <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Did they sell me the wrong size tire?
Since nobody makes a
low-profile studded snow tire..think about it.
Its not too tall at all to
use..honest.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Charles J. Williams wrote:
>
I just bought a set of studded snow tires for my car. I had them mounted
on
> a set of extra rims that I bought earlier. I haven't mounted
the tires/rims
> on the car yet. The snow tires are 225 60 R
16. I figure this to be 0.88
> inches taller than the
original. I put my hand between the spring and tire
> on my left
front and I'm not convinced I have the needed 0.44 inches of
> clearance
that I need. Before I go to the trouble of swapping out the tires
>
I thought I'd check to see if anybody has ever put this tall of a tire
on
> the car before. Will it work or should I go ahead and take the
tires back?
>
> Thanks
>
> Charles
*
Porterfield Brake Wholesaler..just ask! *
1993 Celica
AllTrac
USA
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:22:11
-0500
From: "Doug Garrott" <
dgarrott@texas.net>
Subject: Team3S:
re:Team3s - RX7 injectors
Did I miss the discusion about impedance
concerning the fuel injectors from the RX7s?
I had a post referring to
that awhile back and thought I'd throw it out for comment.
"Early ('86 -
'87 1/2) were LOW impedance ie 3 ohms. '87 1/2 and later are
HIGH
impedance ie 12 ohms. Best check yours and match them. A
low
impedance injector in a high impedance system will burn out the ECU in
a
RX-7."
Doug G
'93 VR-4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:47:25
-0700 (PDT)
From: Geoff Mohler <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Did they sell me the wrong size tire?
That -is- odd.
Wow!
I didnt expect that much of a 'bubble', and kudos to the tire
shop!
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Charles J. Williams wrote:
> I
didn't get a reply from anybody so I went ahead and tried them. It's
very
> close if they fit or not. Clearance between the tire and the
bottom of the
> spring is less than 1/32". Not enough for me to be
comfortable with. I
> took the tire back off.
>
> The
tire dealer is going to swap out the tires for no charge. He
apologized
> for the fact that one of his people got the size wrong.
They seem honest
> about their mistake.
>
> Charles
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
owner-team3s@team3s.com
[mailto:owner-team3s@team3s.com]On Behalf
> Of Charles J. Williams
>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 8:19 PM
> To:
Team3S@Stealth-3000GT.st>
Subject: Team3S: Did they sell me the wrong size tire?
>
>
>
I just bought a set of studded snow tires for my car. I had them mounted
on
> a set of extra rims that I bought earlier. I haven't mounted
the tires/rims
> on the car yet. The snow tires are 225 60 R
16. I figure this to be 0.88
> inches taller than the
original. I put my hand between the spring and tire
> on my left
front and I'm not convinced I have the needed 0.44 inches of
> clearance
that I need. Before I go to the trouble of swapping out the tires
>
I thought I'd check to see if anybody has ever put this tall of a tire
on
> the car before. Will it work or should I go ahead and take the
tires back?
>
> Thanks
>
> Charles
* Porterfield Brake Wholesaler..just ask! *
1993 Celica
AllTrac
USA
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 01:39:59
EDT
From:
NassiriC@aol.comSubject:
Team3S: Cheap con rods for our cars
I'm specing out a new short block for
my car ('97 vr-4), and I'm looking for
stronger lighter rods. I think
I may have found aftermarket racing rods that
will work in our cars, but I
need a few questions answered before I can
proceed:
1. Are the
crank rod journals on our cranks nitrited - does anyone know if
it is common
practice for Japanese auto makers to nitrite their crank??
2. For those
that have installed them, do Venolia or JE pistons accept 'full
floating'
pins.
3. Not that important, but just curious - how much do our stock
rods weigh?
I may have found a cheaper, stronger, and possibly lighter
alternative to our
wimpy stock rods. These are 'pre-owned' (used, but
not necesarily ever
installed and run in a motor) rods that are used in a
certain type of Stock
car motor. These rods are designed to live at
10,000 rpm for hours, NEW they
would run around $150 - $200 each, 'used'
they are $60 including bearings! -
much less if I buy in bulk. All the
dimensions check out except the
'big-end' is slightly smaller then our crank
journals - the difference is
small enough that undersized bearings and
slight machining on the crank could
fix the problem, IF the crank is not
nitrited. It might be possible to
machine the big-end of the rod IF I
can find bearings that would fit, so far
no luck.
For those
interested, these are 4340 forged steel, I-beam, stressed, peened,
maged,
'Ultra-Light Weight 432g, with 7/16 ARP cap screw bolts. Supposedly,
when sold in a set of 8, these are weight matched to 0.01 grams! The
only
thing they need to be installed in our motors is a slight side
clearancing
(.025 - .050 - I think), and they should be re-maged as a
precaution.
Potentially, with a bulk rate discount (over 32) these
rods could cost as
little as $360 for the set, including machining and
prep. That's cheap (even
for V-8 parts) considering the quality, and
the fact that you'll NEVER have
to buy replacements.
Cyrus
Nassiri
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:43:16
+0200 (MEST)
From: <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
> To "estimate"
the drivetrain losses, you just continue to sample (don't stop the dyno) under
deceleration on the dyno.
Nobody estimates here ! We measure loss from
the wheels to the clutch with the electrical energy produced by the drums when
coasting down. Go to my pages and check out the dyno printouts with the curves
showing the loss !!
> But lets face it folks......who cares, road HP
is what matters when you are on the road stomping a 5.SLOW mustang.
This
is not the slang we use on this list.
And I care to find out what is the
difference in the power of the modification to the engine I made. The drivetrain
loss stays constant.
> The ONLY WAY to get true engine HP is to put
the engine on an engine dyno.
Not true at all because on an engine dyno
you do not run all the accessories we have. The coast down method works well
enough and is practised since many years.
The correction factors for SAE
and DIN are different for 2WD or 4WD dynos... only a little though (0.85%
difference I was told).
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 06:35:16
-0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Lucius <
stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: RX7 injectors to RT TT
To test the injector *resistance* (DC
system, remember? Impedance is
for alternating current systems.), just put a
volt-ohm meter across
the two terminals in the electrical connector on the
injector. The
service manuals have more details and some pics. Resistance
should be
2-3 Ohms for our turbo injectors. Would the person with RX7
injectors
please do this and report back to us? Thanks.
Jeff Lucius,
www.stealth316.com- -----
Original Message -----
From: "Doug Garrott" <
dgarrott@texas.net>
To: <
team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Sunday, September 30, 2001 9:22 PM
Subject: Team3S: re:Team3s - RX7
injectors
Did I miss the discusion about impedance concerning the
fuel
injectors from the RX7s?
I had a post referring to that awhile
back and thought I'd throw it
out for comment.
"Early ('86 - '87 1/2)
were LOW impedance ie 3 ohms. '87 1/2 and
later are HIGH impedance ie
12 ohms. Best check yours and match
them. A low impedance
injector in a high impedance system will burn
out the ECU in a
RX-7."
Doug G
'93 VR-4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:05:47
-0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Cheap con rods for our cars
> 1. Are the crank rod
journals on our cranks nitrited - does
> anyone know if it is common
practice for Japanese auto makers
> to nitrite their crank??
>
3. Not that important, but just curious - how much do our
> stock
rods weigh?
Mine are at the machine shop right now, if nobody else has
the answer I can
ask them what they weighed out at.
> I may have
found a cheaper, stronger, and possibly lighter
> alternative to our wimpy
stock rods. These are 'pre-owned'
> (used, but not necesarily ever
installed and run in a motor)
> rods that are used in a certain type of
Stock car motor.
The stock rods are wimpy? I personally haven't
heard of that many broken
rods in the turbo cars.
Could be
interesting, except I'd be leery of buying used racing rods.
Maybe
there's no reason for worry, but if I'm going to tear down my motor
ever
again, I'd rather use new racing rods if I decided to go that
route.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:13:02
-0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Cheap con rods for our cars
> 1. Are the crank rod
journals on our cranks nitrited - does
> anyone know if it is common
practice for Japanese auto makers
> to nitrite their crank??
Ooops,
for some reason my answer to this question wasn't in the e-mail.
Yes, the
cranks are nitrided, at least on the 4-bolt main block cranks. I'm
sure
someone else knows on the 2-bolt motors.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder
VR4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:14:26
-0500
From: "cody" <
overclck@starband.net>
Subject:
RE: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Roger, et
al.
I find some things you say to be contradictory. First off, you
say
"nobody estimates here" then you say "coast down method works
well
enough" If its not perfect, then it is an estimate.
Everywhere I've
ever read about the coast down method claims that they are
"fairly
accurate" or an estimate at best. Drivetrain loss stays
constant? I
always thought we had argued ~forever~ on here about
drivetrain losses
and whether they were static, variable, linear, son on and
so forth. Is
this new information that no matter how much HP a car
makes, its
drivetrain loss stays constant? Is it constant percentage,
constant HP,
or what?
(and geez, let him slide on the slang, its not
bad at all...)
- -Cody
- -----Original Message-----
From:
owner-team3s@team3s.com
[mailto:owner-team3s@team3s.com] On Behalf
Of
roger.gerl@bluewin.chSent: Monday,
October 01, 2001 3:43 AM
To:
team3s@mail.speedtoys.comSubject:
Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
> To "estimate"
the drivetrain losses, you just continue to sample
(don't stop the dyno)
under deceleration on the dyno.
Nobody estimates here ! We measure loss
from the wheels to the clutch
with the electrical energy produced by the
drums when coasting down. Go
to my pages and check out the dyno printouts
with the curves showing the
loss !!
> But lets face it
folks......who cares, road HP is what matters when
you are on the road
stomping a 5.SLOW mustang.
This is not the slang we use on this
list.
And I care to find out what is the difference in the power of
the
modification to the engine I made. The drivetrain loss stays
constant.
> The ONLY WAY to get true engine HP is to put the engine on
an engine
dyno.
Not true at all because on an engine dyno you do not
run all the
accessories we have. The coast down method works well enough and
is
practised since many years.
The correction factors for SAE and DIN
are different for 2WD or 4WD
dynos... only a little though (0.85% difference
I was told).
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 07:19:27
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Cheap con rods for our cars
- ----- Original Message -----
From:
<
NassiriC@aol.com>
>
>
1. Are the crank rod journals on our cranks nitrited - does anyone know if
> it is common practice for Japanese auto makers to nitrite their
crank??
The 92 and up [ I think ] are nitrited --- I was told that it's
not a big deal to
re-nitrite a crank. I never followed up on the re-nitrite
but it should be easy
to confirm.
> I may have found a cheaper,
stronger, and possibly lighter alternative to our
> wimpy stock
rods. These are 'pre-owned' (used, but not necesarily ever
>
installed and run in a motor) rods that are used in a certain type of Stock
> car motor. These rods are designed to live at 10,000 rpm for
hours, NEW they
> would run around $150 - $200 each, 'used' they are $60
including bearings! -
> much less if I buy in bulk.
I'd be
interested if you can resolve the 'big end issue'
>The only
>
thing they need to be installed in our motors is a slight side clearancing
> (.025 - .050 - I think), and they should be re-maged as a
precaution
I don't understand the last paragraph
!!!
Jim Berry
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 07:35:37
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
- ----- Original Message
-----
From: cody <
overclck@starband.net>
>
Roger, et al.
>
>Drivetrain loss stays constant? I
>
always thought we had argued ~forever~ on here about drivetrain losses
>
and whether they were static, variable, linear, son on and so forth.
Is
> this new information that no matter how much HP a car makes,
its
> drivetrain loss stays constant? Is it constant percentage,
constant HP,
> or what?
I could have sworn we went over this a
dozen times before --- loss keeps
increasing as horsepower increases because
the load on drivetrain parts
keeps getting larger etc.etc. Now you're saying
you can determine loss by
pushing in the clutch and measuring the drivetrain
under a no load condition
and then somehow generate the full load numbers ---
I'm not buying into
that one just yet.
IMHO --- use the road numbers
and leave the flywheel estimates to the
marketing guys --- what counts is
performance.
Jim
Berry
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:15:05
-0600
From: "Floyd, Jim" <
Jim_Floyd@maxtor.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Gathering in Colorado for 3/S
Please respond off line with any
inquires.
jim_floyd@maxtor.com-
--------------------------------------------------
GATHERING - Ride
the Rocky Mountains
Saturday 13Oct01
Time 10:00 AM until
??
Colorado Springs, CO
-> EVENTS
<-
(1) 10:00 AM Gathering at Chapel Hills Mall.
(2) 10:30 AM
Mountain drive to Manitou Lake.
(3) Lunch Manitou Lake*.
(4) Afternoon
Return to flat lands for car wash.
(5) 6:00 PM Car show.
(*) No
food services at Manitou Lake.
You must bring food to cook and/or
eat.
State charges $4.00 for Lake use.
(1) Directions to Chapel Hills
Mall:
I-25 to Exit #150 (N. Academy Blvd/Highway 83 South).
Turn left
(south) at exit stop light, onto Academy Blvd, headed south.
Go .8 miles to
the fourth stoplight.
Turn left (east) onto Briargate Blvd.
Turn left
(north) at first stoplight, into Chapel Hills Mall.
Go to the southwest
corner of Sears (#10) for gathering area.
(2) Directions to Manitou
Lake:
I-25 southbound to exit #141
(Cimarron/Pikes Peak/Manitou
Springs/Highway 24 West)
At the exit light, turn left (west) onto Highway
24.
Go west thru Woodland Park, to the fifth light (19.4 miles.
Turn left
(north) onto Highway 67.
Manitou Lake is 7.8 miles North of Woodland Park on
Hwy 67.
(4) Directions to Car Wash:
Highway 67 to Highway 24, to
I-25.
Take I-25 north 3.2 miles to exit #145 (Fillmore)
Go east 2.3 miles
on Fillmore thru 8 lights to Union.
The ninth light is Union.
After
Union, Fillmore turns into Circle Drive.
Stay on Circle Drive for 1.4 miles
to the second light - Maizeland.
Turn left (east) onto Maizeland-only way you
can turn-
and go 1.1 miles to Academy.
Turn left (north) onto Academy and
go to the third light (Austin Bluffs -1.7
miles).
Turn right (east) onto
Austin Bluffs and go to the third light (Barnes - 1.2
miles)
and turn
right (east) onto Barnes.
Go to the second stop light(the first one is a
cross walk for the high
school) at Oro Blanco
The car wash is on the
southeast corner, behind the Diamond Shamrock gas
station.
(5)
Directions from the car wash to the car show:
Back onto Barnes, go east to
Powers Blvd (1.1 miles)
and turn right (south) onto Powers.
Go 1.5 miles
to the third light at Constitution.
Grocery Warehouse (car show) is on the
southeast corner of Constitution and
Powers.
-
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you
are only coming to the Car Show that night.
(5) Directions just to the
car show at Grocery Warehouse:
I-25 to exit #149 (Woodman Valley Road).
Go
east(left) at the exit light.
Go to thru 13 lights, the 14th light is Powers
(5 miles).
Turn south (right) onto Powers and go 4.4 miles to Constitution
(5th light).
Turn east(left) onto Constitution, and immediately take the
first right
to go into the Grocery Warehouse (formerly Cub's) parking
lot.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:15:01
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Oh man, you guys
do not read what peaople write ! I explained what I mean
but I think I should
keep it simplier :
Engine has 300hp, drivetrain loss is 100hp at
6000.
Man modifies engine to 400hp, drivetrain loss still 100hp at
6000.
Therefore drivetrain loss is constant ... more clear now
?????
> I find some things you say to be contradictory. First
off, you say
> "nobody estimates here" then you say "coast down
method works well
> enough" If its not perfect, then it is an
estimate.
This is shitpicking ! It's perfect, basta. READ the dyno
plot
http://www.rtec.ch/17-05-00_1_l.gif>
Everywhere I've
> ever read about the coast down method claims that they
are "fairly
> accurate" or an estimate at best.
... everywhere ?
Where is everywhere ? Please share the information with us.
>
Drivetrain loss stays constant?
Better read my posts again !
>
always thought we had argued ~forever~ on here about drivetrain losses
>
and whether they were static, variable, linear, son on and so forth.
What
is "son" in this sentence ?... explanation needed.
> this new
information that no matter how much HP a car makes, its
> drivetrain loss
stays constant? Is it constant percentage, constant HP,
> or
what?
I'm tired to explain this again ... read the explanation before,
the little
example should do the job.
And belive me, loss is not the same
curve from one run to another, but it is
always accurate for the current
run.
Roger ... enough dynos done (good and bad ones)
93'3000GT
TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:22:33
-0400
From: "Jason Barnhart" <
phnxgld@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
There may be an increase
in loss when overall power is increased but I think
the difference is
negligible particularly when discussing percentages as
everyone has a
tendency to do. No one will know exactly how much power is
lost without
doing an engine dyno and a chassis dyno but if you must
estimate, the
'deceleration' test is widely used and will not vary no matter
what the
engine makes in power. Once you have that number, horsepower
not
percentage, you should be able to use it for any car making any amount
of
power as a good general idea.
If this test method is used, the
'loss' is going to be the same no matter
what the engine makes as the engine
is completely taken out of the equation,
if you were only given a percentage
then figure the actual horsepower loss
and save it for future
reference. The only things that are going to affect
this loss figure
are the various drivetrain components (clutch, driveshaft,
rims, etc) that
are still 'connected' to the ground when the car is
clutched. I have
doubts as to what the difference in loss numbers would
even look like when
these various components are changed, but that's another
discussion
altogether.
The closest anyone here is ever going to get at calculating
their horsepower
loss (which is stupid anyway, to the wheels is what matters)
is to keep the
known loss at a particular horsepower static. If we
start pulling numbers
out of our ass as to how much more power we *lose*
because we're making more
power we're going to be so far off the mark it's
silly. I don't know of a
formula that says with any accuracy that if
you increase X additional
horsepower at the crank then you lose Y horsepower
in the drivetrain.
Now, if you really want to know what a 'FWD' VR4 would
lose to the ground,
buy a used center differential, weld it, disconnect the
driveshaft and throw
it on the 2WD dyno. This too will give you an
excellent *idea* as to how
much power to the ground you're making without the
aid of an AWD dyno but
saying you'll lose twice is much through AWD is not
accurate, nor is there a
formula to figure out a *strong* idea at what the
difference would be.
You'd be better off to figure the crank hp using the
'deceleration' method
mentioned and get the same number lost on an AWD and
ADD it to the crank hp
figure you received.
Even better yet, f*@) the
horsepower number and bring your car to a track.
Doesn't matter if you make
900hp if you can't break into the 12s. And you
can still figure rough
horsepower numbers using 1/4 mile times.
Jason
- ----- Original
Message -----
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
To: "cody" <
overclck@starband.net>; <
roger.gerl@bw171zhb.bluewin.ch>;
"Team3S"
<
team3s@mail.speedtoys.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 01, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions
about drivetrain losses
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
From: cody <
overclck@starband.net>
>
>
> Roger, et al.
> >
> >Drivetrain loss stays
constant? I
> > always thought we had argued ~forever~ on here
about drivetrain losses
> > and whether they were static, variable,
linear, son on and so forth. Is
> > this new information that no
matter how much HP a car makes, its
> > drivetrain loss stays
constant? Is it constant percentage, constant HP,
> > or
what?
>
> I could have sworn we went over this a dozen times before
--- loss keeps
> increasing as horsepower increases because the load on
drivetrain parts
> keeps getting larger etc.etc. Now you're saying you can
determine loss by
> pushing in the clutch and measuring the drivetrain
under a no load
condition
> and then somehow generate the full load
numbers --- I'm not buying into
> that one just yet.
>
> IMHO
--- use the road numbers and leave the flywheel estimates to the
>
marketing guys --- what counts is
performance.
>
> Jim
Berry
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:52:29
-0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Lucius <
stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Here's a couple of
articles for consideration on this topic.
http://www.sdsefi.com/techdyno.htmhttp://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power3.htmI
agree with Jason. Engine power doesn't mean squat. What counts is
what you
put down on the road and how the well the car *and* driver
perform in
whatever venue you select (drag racing, road racing,
Friday night cruising,
commuting, etc.). So forget about drivetrain
loss, unless of course you are
trying to reduce it by changing
components (bearings, shafts, seals, fluids,
tires, wheels, etc.).
BTW, has anyone here done a before and after dyno
test with only a
change from stock to lightweight propeller shaft? Or maybe
stock to
lightweight wheels?
Jeff Lucius,
www.stealth316.com***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:32:48
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
> I could have
sworn we went over this a dozen times before
Sure we did and you are
still asking ;-)
> loss keeps
> increasing as horsepower
increases because the load on drivetrain parts
> keeps getting larger
etc.etc
Unfortunately, wrong ! Drivetrain loss doesn't follow at all the
engines
power or power distributed to the ground. It stays in funtion to rpm,
but
not linear. But it is true that the higher rpm (the faster the parts move
in
the tranny) the more the drivetrain loss is.
> Now you're saying
you can determine loss by
> pushing in the clutch and measuring the
drivetrain under a no load
> condition and then somehow generate the full
load numbers ---
> I'm not buying into that one just yet.
Then
leave it. BTW, who said that there is no load. Go to a dyno session and
check
what is going on. It's easier than you think it is.
> IMHO --- use the
road numbers and leave the flywheel estimates to the
> marketing guys ---
what counts is performance.
When you speak of any 1/4 mile runs or other
"performance" numbers then you
have a new big variable in the equation :
human ... the one with the biggest
range.
Now the big quiz for
everyone :
Man measures 400hp to the ground on a cold day but then 410hp
after many
mods on a hot day. Therefore the mod you have done gave you 10hp
to the
ground. Right or wrong ? Explain your answer for further
discussion.
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:57:35
-0600
From: Dave Monarchi <
monarchd@refuge.Colorado.EDU>
Subject:
Team3S: need an 18" VR4 wheel
it's been one of those months..
sorry, I need to vent..
<whine>
4 weeks ago the
clutch self destructed in my GTI..
I spent 2 months getting my
SAAB running and looking great only to
be rear ended in it 3 weeks
ago..
2 weeks ago my garage door springs broke..
last week in the 3000gt I hit a raised section of concrete and had a
sidewall blowout with my Nitto 555s.. I lucked out and found a used
but
near new full set of Kumhos the next day and had them put on..
(which
I really like btw..)
a few days ago I get the SAAB drivable again
and the AC belt cut a
hole in the coolant hose..
Last night
driving the 3000gt at 3:30am on I25 I came over a rise to
see a small dark
object in my lane with no time to avoid it.. The
inside lip of my
right front wheel is dented in about an inch.. I
highly doubt it's
fixable.. no idea if the tire is destroyed
yet..
</whine>
so, as the subject line says.. anyone
have an extra 18" wheel just
lying around? ;)
this is the
one I need:
http://www.team3s.com/Images/rims95vr4.jpgOR,
is anyone selling a full set of stock or aftermarket wheels that
will fit
over 2nd gen calipers with 15mm
spacers?
TIA..
Dave
=======================
= 95 Black
3000GT VR4 =
= 87 Mica Red GTI G60 =
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~monarchd/cars.html
= There is no spoon.. =
=======================
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:57:56
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
> There may be
an increase in loss when overall power is increased but I
think
> the
difference is negligible particularly when discussing percentages as
>
everyone has a tendency to do.
This is the only part that is not correct
because drivetrain loss and engine
hp are not related to each other but base
on rpm. The loss increases as rpm
increases but power falls off at a certain
rpm while loss is still climbing.
> Once you have that number,
horsepower not
> percentage, you should be able to use it for any car
making any amount of
> power as a good general idea.
It's damn
accurate ! The engines are rated to 284PS here in Europe and the
first test
with an almost new car showed 286PS to the flywheel. Also the
latest dyno
tests in the UK showed these numbers... pretty accurate
"guess"
:-)
> If this test method is used, the 'loss' is going to
be the same no matter
> what the engine makes as the engine is completely
taken out of the
equation,
> if you were only given a percentage then
figure the actual horsepower loss
> and save it for future
reference. The only things that are going to
affect
> this loss
figure are the various drivetrain components (clutch,
driveshaft,
>
rims, etc) that are still 'connected' to the ground when the car is
>
clutched. I have doubts as to what the difference in loss numbers
would
> even look like when these various components are changed, but
that's
another
> discussion altogether.
The difference is even
noticeable during two runs ! Look at the loss curve
http://www.rtec.ch/17-05-00_2_l.gif
and then
http://www.rtec.ch/17-05-00_1_l.gif
both runs done at about the same time
but about 150rpm difference in the
bigger regions of the loss. Here we can
see that the heat of the oil in the
tranny and the hot tires increase the
total loss while hp figure is looking
pretty different due to other WI and
BC settings.
> The closest
anyone here is ever going to get at calculating their
horsepower
> loss
(which is stupid anyway, to the wheels is what matters)
No, no.... you
guys call me stupid, call all tuners who use a dyno stupid ?
Again LOS IS NOT
CALCULATED .. it is measured.
> is to keep the
> known loss at a
particular horsepower static. If we start pulling numbers
> out of
our ass as to how much more power we *lose* because we're making
more
>
power we're going to be so far off the mark it's silly. I don't know of
a
> formula that says with any accuracy that if you increase X
additional
> horsepower at the crank then you lose Y horsepower in the
drivetrain.
Because you guys are still connecting crank horsepower to the
drivetrain
loss... nonononono. This is BS You can even have a static 1hp on
the crank
and turn it up to 7000 and you will see that loss increases. Nada
connection
to the flywheel hp !
> Now, if you really want to know
what a 'FWD' VR4 would lose to the ground,
> buy a used center
differential, weld it, disconnect the driveshaft and
throw
> it on the
2WD dyno. This too will give you an excellent *idea* as to how
You
can do it easier as some Audis have the same engine but come with or
without
Quattro. A frinds test on such TT's showed a loss of 25hp mroe on
the
Quattros at 6000rpm compared to the FWD.
> Even better yet, f*@) the
horsepower number and bring your car to a track.
> Doesn't matter if you
make 900hp if you can't break into the 12s. And you
> can still
figure rough horsepower numbers using 1/4 mile times.
And now there is
the factor humanicus in the quotation.... the biggest
variable in the world.
Yo ucan easily give me a 10 second car and due to my
low knowledge of driving
a straight lane from stop I'd not do better than
13.5 or so... trust me :-))
This is the most inaccurate guessing exists :)
This is why I always say that
the driver is fast not the car !
Hey, don't forget to answer the quiz too
:)
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 23:08:31
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
> Here's a couple
of articles for consideration on this topic.
>
>
http://www.sdsefi.com/techdyno.htm>
>
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power3.htmThx
for the links :)
> I agree with Jason. Engine power doesn't mean
squat. What counts is
> what you put down on the road
> and how the
well the car *and* driver
> perform in whatever venue you select (drag
racing, road racing,
> Friday night cruising, commuting, etc.). So forget
about drivetrain
> loss
Really .. Fill out the quiz, we will see
:)
> BTW, has anyone here done a before and after dyno test with only
a
> change from stock to lightweight propeller shaft? Or maybe stock
to
> lightweight wheels?
I will with the new wheels next year
because I want to show that 18" wheels
are in fact steeling hp compared to
smaller ones :) I do not have the money
for a CF driveshaft so I hope anyone
else planning to get one is maybe able
to show it. Doesn't have AAM any
numbers on that.
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:45:19
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
- ----- Original Message
-----
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
>
Engine has 300hp, drivetrain loss is 100hp at 6000.
> Man modifies engine
to 400hp, drivetrain loss still 100hp at 6000.
> Therefore drivetrain loss
is constant ... more clear now ?????
That's even worse --- now we're
saying that loss is 33% at 300HP [ using the
numbers from above ] and 25% if
you have a 400HP engine. I guess I need
to read the old posts --- you guys
convinced me that losses increased with
increased HP because loads were
higher on the various devices.
> > always thought we had argued
~forever~ on here about drivetrain losses
> > and whether they were
static, variable, linear, son on and so forth.
>
> What is "son" in
this sentence ?... explanation needed.
[ It's slang ] he meant to say "so
on and so forth" meaning additional thing of
this type.
You guys are
giving me a headache.
Jim
Berry
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:14:35
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
> > Engine
has 300hp, drivetrain loss is 100hp at 6000.
> > Man modifies engine to
400hp, drivetrain loss still 100hp at 6000.
> > Therefore drivetrain
loss is constant ... more clear now ?????
>
> That's even worse ---
now we're saying that loss is 33% at 300HP [ using
the
> numbers from
above ] and 25% if you have a 400HP engine. I guess I need
> to read the
old posts --- you guys convinced me that losses increased with
> increased
HP because loads were higher on the various devices.
Loss is not a % but
a specific hp figure for each rpm reading.
On a dyno the engine is on
full load from 1000 to 7000 rpm and loss rises as
rpm increases. HP also
rises but falls off at about 6000 or earlier. Finaly,
loss and crank hp are
not connected to each other.
I have only got one answer to the quiz
yet... please more input :)
Later
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:14:25
-0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
I was not saying
that.... What I was saying is that as far as I knew/know
that drivetrain loss
is a % and that the amount of HP (numerically lost)
goes up but the
percentage remains constant. For example on my MKIV I
dynoed 402 RWHP
pulled the motor and at the crank with all accessories it
dynoed 492
approximately 23% drivetrain loss (this is with LW Flywheel and
CF Drive
shaft) That is damn good so I do not have trouble believing that
our
cars have a 30% + frictional drivetrain loss (more shit to turn more
"wasted"
energy) But hey WTF do I know I am only 23 yrs old
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Berry
[SMTP:fastmax@home.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:45 PM
>
To: Roger Gerl; Team3S
> Subject: Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about
drivetrain losses
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
>
> >
> > Engine has 300hp, drivetrain loss is 100hp at
6000.
> > Man modifies engine to 400hp, drivetrain loss still 100hp at
6000.
> > Therefore drivetrain loss is constant ... more clear now
?????
>
> That's even worse --- now we're saying that loss is 33%
at 300HP [ using
> the
> numbers from above ] and 25% if you have a
400HP engine. I guess I need
> to read the old posts --- you guys
convinced me that losses increased with
>
> increased HP because
loads were higher on the various devices.
>
> > > always
thought we had argued ~forever~ on here about drivetrain losses
> >
> and whether they were static, variable, linear, son on and so
forth.
> >
> > What is "son" in this sentence ?...
explanation needed.
>
> [ It's slang ] he meant to say "so on and
so forth" meaning additional
> thing of
> this type.
>
> You guys are giving me a headache.
>
> Jim
Berry
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:05:47
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
I'm working on it ---- the
main issues are repeatability --- you're asking the
dyno to be repeatable
within 2½ % with many possible changes in conditions
between runs. In
addition you didn't say whether the numbers were corrected.
Did you read
the articles for which Jeff lucius posted the links ???
If not please
do.
The first article sounds like what I would have written if I were
smart enough.
My main problem with this loss issue from before is the
inability to believe
that a car drivetrain can disipate 76000 watts [ 400 hp
engine at 25% loss]
of heat. 76 KW is one hell af a lot of heat to be
dessipated from devices that
are generally not designed for shedding
heat.
Jim
Berry
==================================================
- -----
Original Message -----
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
To: Team3S
<
team3s@mail.speedtoys.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 01, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions
about drivetrain losses
> > > Engine has 300hp, drivetrain loss
is 100hp at 6000.
> > > Man modifies engine to 400hp, drivetrain
loss still 100hp at 6000.
> > > Therefore drivetrain loss is
constant ... more clear now ?????
> >
> > That's even worse
--- now we're saying that loss is 33% at 300HP [ using
> the
> >
numbers from above ] and 25% if you have a 400HP engine. I guess I need
>
> to read the old posts --- you guys convinced me that losses increased
with
> > increased HP because loads were higher on the various
devices.
>
> Loss is not a % but a specific hp figure for each rpm
reading.
>
> On a dyno the engine is on full load from 1000 to 7000
rpm and loss rises as
> rpm increases. HP also rises but falls off at
about 6000 or earlier. Finaly,
> loss and crank hp are not connected to
each other.
>
> I have only got one answer to the quiz yet... please
more input :)
>
> Later
> Roger
> 93'3000GT TT
>
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:32:51
-0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject:
RE: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
> Now the big
quiz for everyone :
>
> Man measures 400hp to the ground on a cold
day but then 410hp
> after many mods on a hot day. Therefore the mod you
have done
> gave you 10hp to the ground. Right or wrong ? Explain your
> answer for further discussion.
Fine, I'll take Roger's little
quiz...
Wrong. There are too many variables that aren't included in
the list.
What's the humidity on each day, barometric pressure, how warmed up
is the
car, are the tires the same pressure on both days, hood open/closed,
dyno
exactly calibrated the same, etc?
Too many differences possible
to directly compare the two runs and conclude
that the mod was responsible
for the difference in power. Multiple runs
should be made to average
the runs together into an averaged curve of each
setup to try to get more
consistent numbers to compare, preferably under the
same conditions.
-
-Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:32:43
EDT
From:
Yogourt@aol.comSubject:
Team3S: Strange Idle problem: Help
My car over heated the other day and
after I fixed the problem the car has a
weird idling problem. When the
car is driving over 5mph and you put it in
neutral the car idles at 1900rpm,
and when the car slows to under 5mph (still
in neutral) the idle goes back
to normal. It does this every time, with and
with out the A/C
on.
I was thinking that the overheating had
affected the IAC maybe? Any
Ideals?
Paul
Return-path: <
Yogourt@aol.com>
From:
Yogourt@aol.comFull-name:
Yogourt
Message-ID: <
f.1b9e2d70.28ea4887@aol.com>
Date:
Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:30:31 EDT
Subject: Strange Idle problem: Help
To:
stealth@starnet.netMIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for
Windows sub 138
My car over heated the other day and
after I fixed the problem the car
has a weird idling problem. When the
car is driving over 5mph and you put it
in neutral the car idles at 1900rpm,
and when the car slows to under 5mph
(still in neutral) the idle goes back
to normal. It does this every time,
with and with out the A/C
on.
I was thinking that the overheating had
affected the IAC maybe? Any
Ideals?
Paul
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:37:27
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
> I was not
saying that.... What I was saying is that as far as I knew/know
> that
drivetrain loss is a % and that the amount of HP (numerically lost)
> goes
up but the percentage remains constant.
No unfortunately
not.
> For example on my MKIV I dynoed 402 RWHP pulled the motor
and
> at the crank with all accessories it dynoed 492 approximately
23%
> drivetrain loss (this is with LW Flywheel and CF Drive shaft)
That is
damn
> good so I do not have trouble believing that our cars
have a 30%
> + frictional drivetrain loss (more shit to turn more "wasted"
energy)
Look guys, when one is stating 492 or 402hp and a loss of about
90hp (this
is 18.3%) then this is only valid for one specific rpm.
Russel is not saying
what rpm so lets assume it was 6000. Therefore the loss
is valid for 6000
rpm and nowhere else.
If Russel now adds bigger
turbos and dyno the engine again and gets 550hp at
the crank also at 6000rpm
is loss still 18.3% ... wrong !!! This because the
drivetrain loss is still
90hp and this would be 16.4%. You see giving a
percentage loss is simply said
bullshit... it doesn't work. And this is why
Russel thinks that the loss is
pretty good but on a stock car with 300hp
crank hp the 90hp loss is 30%
!
Remeber, when you add power to the engine the drivetrain is not
affected (as
long as it can withstand the power, hehe) and therefore at the
specdific rpm
the loss stays the same... 90hp in the small
example.
Therefore guys, never use a % figure again because it is not
comparable nor
is it saying anything.
Besides of that, my loss at the
400hp engine run was around 110hp at 5660
and about 115hp at 6000. Now when
the RWD Supra had a loss of 90hp and ours
around 105hp + then this sounds
very possible to me ... and accuratly
measured on the
dyno.
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:45:20
+0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
> I'm working
on it ---- the main issues are repeatability --- you're asking
the
>
dyno to be repeatable within 2½ % with many possible changes in
conditions
> between runs. In addition you didn't say whether the numbers
were
corrected.
Speaking of the quiz, you are close because you
mentioned the correction
factor. Only engine hp readings are corrected at the
flywheel. Then the
drivetrain loss can be deducted again to get the corrected
hp to the ground.
You see why one needs engine hp on the flywheel now
?
> The first article sounds like what I would have written if I were
smart
enough.
> My main problem with this loss issue from before is the
inability to
believe
> that a car drivetrain can disipate 76000 watts [
400 hp engine at 25%
loss]
> of heat. 76 KW is one hell af a lot of
heat to be dessipated from devices
that
> are generally not designed
for shedding heat.
I'm absolutely with you and it is horrible to know how
much energy is wasted
and this is why bad the overall power-factor of a
gasoline-engine is.
But have you guys noticed how hot onyl the transfer
case is getting after a
longer high speed drive ? Oh man... damn hot
:-(
More tmo (late here)
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:12:12
-0400
From: "Jason Barnhart" <
phnxgld@erols.com>
Subject: RE: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Roger, I really wish the
RPM tangent could have been explored after we
came to an agreement on the
'basics', now we have a 3rd dimension that
makes it increasingly difficult to
debate this at it's current point.
For the sake of *my* statements the
horsepower loss is the peak,
whatever the hell the RPM is when it hits it's
peak loss doesn't matter
for *my* explanations and I think this should go for
a bit until we can
all come to an understanding... With that, I ask you
to read below.
- -----Original Message-----
From:
owner-team3s@team3s.com
[mailto:owner-team3s@team3s.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Gerl
>> loss keeps
>> increasing as horsepower
increases because the load on drivetrain
parts
>>keeps getting
larger etc.etc
> Unfortunately, wrong ! Drivetrain loss doesn't follow
at all the
engines
> power or power distributed to the ground. It stays
in funtion to rpm,
but
> not linear. But it is true that the higher rpm
(the faster the parts
move > in the tranny) the more the drivetrain loss
is.
Here's a survey for you Roger, have you engine dyno'd and
subsequently
chassis dyno'd an engine, then modified it and done the
same? Until you
have your statement that this is " Unfortunately, wrong
!" is nothing
more than an opinion. No opinion is wrong ! without being
proven so
with facts, facts you have not provided. It is my opinion
that it is
entirely *possible* that an engine lose more power through a
drivetrain
after it's been modified due to increases in stress. That's
not to say
it's so, but it's possible, it's not wrong ! to think that.
And since
you have not 'double dyno'd' your own car, YOUR results are simply
an
estimate. YOUR loss of 110 or 115 hp as shown in the
'deceleration'
test is not necessarily what is actually being loss while
under hard
acceleration.
I think the coast or deceleration test is the
only realistic way to
determine our losses, that does not mean that it's 100%
accurate when
talking about a car under hard acceleration.
> When
you speak of any 1/4 mile runs or other "performance" numbers
then
>
you have a new big variable in the equation : human ... the one with
the
> biggest range.
Again I'll state that I really don't care what
kind of numbers you claim
to make and you shouldn't either if you can't drive
it well enough to
amount to anything. If your driving is that bad, you
need a Yugo, stop
modifying your 3000GT.
> Now the big quiz for
everyone :
> Man measures 400hp to the ground on a cold day but then
410hp after
many
> mods on a hot day. Therefore the mod you have done
gave you 10hp to
the
> ground. Right or wrong ? Explain your answer for
further discussion.
Great, let's create more confusion and debating
before clearing up the
current.
There is no right or wrong answer but
as far as I'm concerned this car
has not proven to make any more than a 10hp
gain. You will, in all
likelihood, never recreate the exact
conditions. If you can't show an
improvement, then you can't *claim* an
improvement, it's only
speculation. "My car could do this if...".
Forget if, do it or shut
up. Besides, with global warming it will only
get hotter
anyway...........................
Should I start my own
quiz? If an identical car makes more *peak*
horsepower, will it be
faster? Save your time. Not necessarily. If it
makes 10
more hp at 5000 RPMs but averages a loss of 50hp at other
relevant points you
didn't *gain* anything... So I ask, who the hell
cares about *peak*
horsepower anyway? Go to the track (whichever track
that may be) and
learn to drive, learn how to make use of this extra
power you're hoping to
make.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
End of Team3S: 3000GT &
Stealth V1
#633
***************************************
