Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth Tuesday, October 2
2001 Volume 01 : Number
634
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:16:42 -0700
From: "Darc" <
wce@telus.net>
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.
I will take the
quiz...shuffle, shuffle, grimace...
No other variables are noted other
that those which are mentioned. This is
important. So assume, or consider
absolute, if you cannot assume, that
everything else is the same on the
days noted other than what is mentioned.
Do not invent new criteria which
have not been included in the question, or
as any student knows, you get a
failing grade. That does not exempt me from
failing, but it certainly should
help anyone who doesn't know this, who is
following me and doesn't need to
make previous mistakes.
Now to the question.
There are many mods =
z (possibly z= w+x+y etc)
There are two different days with two
different temperatures (a and b) with
a difference in temperature/factor of
T
There are two results (400 and 410)
a gives a result
of 400 (a = 400)
b+z multiplied by T gives a result of
410 (b+z (T)) = 410)
The difference between these two results is
expalined by z plus a factor of
whatever the temperature difference is
T
Can you determine anything from this. Yes. There is a difference
in
horsepower reading based upon temperature (T), and modifications (z).
Since
z is a plural (modifications) more information should be given. If it
was
one modification, and that modification was tested at the same
temperature
as a, then one can extrapolate. It is more than one
modification, however,
and it is tested on a different day with a different
temperature b. So one
cannot conclude anything regardless of the information
given, other than to
answer wrong. The answer is wrong given inadequate
information, without the
need to invent more information.
Period.
Darc
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:23:50
EDT
From:
FredARose@aol.comSubject: Team3S: How do
you set the '93 Stealth SOHC Timing Belt Tension
I have not been able get
the repair manuals for my '93 Stealth and had to
replace the water pump this
past weekend. I followed the instructions from
this site only to run
into problems setting the tension on the single
overhead cam timing
belt.
Could anyone tell me how to set it?
Thanks,
Fred
Rose
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:51:09
-0400
From: "Jason Barnhart" <
phnxgld@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
- ----- Original Message
-----
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
To:
"Team3S" <
team3s@mail.speedtoys.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 01, 2001 4:57 PM
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.
Again, RPMs are
another tangent to this discussion, one that would have been
better off
leaving open till we finished the current discussion. You have
also
*not* proven that drivetrain loss does not increase as power increases.
I'm
not saying that it does, but it seems feasable and I'll leave myself
open to
that theory till that theory is *proven* wrong which can only be
done by an
engine and chassis dyno session before mods and an engine and
chassis dyno
session after mods. This isn't going to happen so lets agree
to
disagree and at least stop entering RPMs into the equation until we can
come
to an agreement on the 'basics'.
>
> > 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"
> :-)
What I was saying, Roger, is that
by using the horsepower loss (shown in the
coasting test) you should be able
to apply this to another car with a
similar drivetrain and get a "good
general idea". But, as you just proved
(asside from unknown variables)
in the two PS examples shown the numbers
were not IDENTICAL and therefore
it's nothing more than a "guess" or a "good
general idea" and has not been
shown to be 100% accurate. I'm pretty sure
that Mitsubishi probably
spent the time and money engine dynoing it alone to
get the crank hp number,
something no one on this list will likely do so we
try to come up with the
closest guess we can. Read it again Roger, I'm
supporting the coast
test as the only possible option but it should not be
stated as 100%
accurate.
>
> > 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.
I think the language barrier is hurting
again Roger... What I was stating
here was that the bottom line is what
makes it to the ground, unless you're
trying to compare the losses measured
between drivetrain mods. If you're
not going to change your drivetrain,
forget the loss. Knowing that X amount
of power is lost between the
crank and the ground isn't going to help you
until you modify the
drivetrain. Who cares about crank hp? I don't.
>
>
> 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.
Roger, put the crack pipe
down. I think it'd be kinda silly to say we lose
25hp more through OUR
AWD system because Audi loses 25hp more through THEIR
AWD system. The
'welded diff' method I mentioned is widely used in the DSM
scene by people
who own dyno's, have made MANY more dyno runs than you have,
and have SERIOUS
horsepower numbers and SERIOUS 1/4 mile numbers to back it
up. Can you
think of a better way to dyno an AWD car on a 2WD dyno? Stop
being so
argumentative.
>
> > 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
!
At some point I'll just laugh at the person who gets outrun in the
slower
car. If this is a factor, learn to drive. No one said it
had to be a
straight line either. Acceleration affects all facets of
racing. However,
there is no better comparison than 1/4 times.
The track is *always* 1/4
mile and if you must, you can *speculate* by
correcting for altitude.
Jason
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:54:26
-0400
From: "Jason Barnhart" <
phnxgld@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Jim, that's why several of
us are trying to get people to stop talking about
percentage loss. A
percentage is nothing more than a comparison of two
given numbers. for
all practical purposes the loss number (measured in hp)
is going to change
very little with an increase in power. *If* it does
increase it'll be
so small that the headache received trying to figure it
out isn't worth
it. Go with a static number. And forget the RPM equation
for
now.
Jason
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
To: "Roger Gerl"
<
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>;
"Team3S"
<
team3s@mail.speedtoys.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 01, 2001 5:45 PM
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 19:59:00
-0400
From: "Jason Barnhart" <
phnxgld@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Finally, someone who's
actually measured crank and wheel horsepower. Being
that you've already
completed half the test, I'd be very interested to see
what your horsepower
losses will be with more modifications. I'd be willing
to bet that it
will stay at or near 90hp, not 23%.
Jason
- ----- Original Message
-----
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
To:
"'Jim Berry'" <
fastmax@home.com>;
"'Team 3S'" <
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Monday, October 01, 2001 6:14 PM
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 20:45:32
-0400
From: "Zobel, Kurt" <
KURT.ZOBEL@ca.com>
Subject: RE: Re:
Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
The answer is Wrong. ..but
now remember only to drive on HOT days!
kdz
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Darc [mailto:wce@telus.net]
Sent: Monday, October 01,
2001 4:17 PM
To: Team3S
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.
I will take the
quiz...shuffle, shuffle, grimace...
No other variables are noted other
that those which are mentioned. This is
important. So assume, or consider
absolute, if you cannot assume, that
everything else is the same on the
days noted other than what is mentioned.
Do not invent new criteria which
have not been included in the question, or
as any student knows, you get a
failing grade. That does not exempt me from
failing, but it certainly should
help anyone who doesn't know this, who is
following me and doesn't need to
make previous mistakes.
Now to the question.
There are many mods =
z (possibly z= w+x+y etc)
There are two different days with two
different temperatures (a and b) with
a difference in temperature/factor of
T
There are two results (400 and 410)
a gives a result
of 400 (a = 400)
b+z multiplied by T gives a result of
410 (b+z (T)) = 410)
The difference between these two results is
expalined by z plus a factor of
whatever the temperature difference is
T
Can you determine anything from this. Yes. There is a difference
in
horsepower reading based upon temperature (T), and modifications (z).
Since
z is a plural (modifications) more information should be given. If it
was
one modification, and that modification was tested at the same
temperature
as a, then one can extrapolate. It is more than one
modification, however,
and it is tested on a different day with a different
temperature b. So one
cannot conclude anything regardless of the information
given, other than to
answer wrong. The answer is wrong given inadequate
information, without the
need to invent more information.
Period.
Darc
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 20:49:56
-0400
From: "Michael Bulaon" <
profilevr4@3000gtvr4.net>
Subject:
Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts before
My
front ECS struts are really bad and I bought a pair today.
I'm not ready
to install them just yet but I have a question.
It seems that both of the
pistons are collapsed and I can move them all the
way up or down with some
effort.
Just wondering if this is normal.
It seems normal being
that the boxes that they came in would not be able to
fit them inside if they
were fully extended.
Can anyone confirm?
Michael
Bulaon
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:01:16
-0400
From: "Michael Bulaon" <
profilevr4@3000gtvr4.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts
before
They should be new since I bought them at the dealership. I can
fully
collapse or extend both of them and they will stay in either
position.
You've got me worried now. Anyone else?
Michael
Bulaon
- -----Original Message-----
From: BlackLight
[mailto:BlackLight@Planetice.net]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:54
PM
To: 'Michael Bulaon'
Subject: RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has
installed new ECS
struts before
My FACTORY replacement ECS strut
(rear) came fully EXTENDED and when I
depressed it it immediately came back
out (somewhat slowly). Is yours
new? If not, I would guess they are no
good.
Matt Nelson
1994 RT TT
Computer Sales Consultant
Gateway
Computers, Salem OR
Work Phone 503-587-7113
BlackLight@Planetice.Netwww.BlackLight.5u.com***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:11:34
-0700
From: "BlackLight" <
BlackLight@Planetice.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts before
I
ordered mine from NORCO Mitsu in CA, $130 with free shipping for the
right
rear. When I compress mine it came out at about 1 or 2 inches per
second. Not
REAL slow, but not fast by any means. Are both of them like
that?
Matt
Nelson
1994 RT TT
Computer Sales Consultant
Gateway Computers, Salem
OR
Work Phone 503-587-7113
BlackLight@Planetice.Netwww.BlackLight.5u.com-
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Bulaon
[mailto:profilevr4@3000gtvr4.net]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 6:01
PM
To:
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st;
BlackLight
Subject: RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new
ECS
struts before
They should be new since I bought them at the
dealership. I can fully
collapse or extend both of them and they will stay in
either position.
You've got me worried now. Anyone else?
Michael
Bulaon
- -----Original Message-----
From: BlackLight
[mailto:BlackLight@Planetice.net]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:54
PM
To: 'Michael Bulaon'
Subject: RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has
installed new ECS
struts before
My FACTORY replacement ECS strut
(rear) came fully EXTENDED and when I
depressed it it immediately came back
out (somewhat slowly). Is yours
new? If not, I would guess they are no
good.
Matt Nelson
1994 RT TT
Computer Sales Consultant
Gateway
Computers, Salem OR
Work Phone 503-587-7113
BlackLight@Planetice.Netwww.BlackLight.5u.com***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:57:53
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts before
Most shocks
are pressurized with an inert gas to reduce foaming
of the oil --- I'm not
sure about the stock shocks. Normally a gas
shock is shipped collapsed with
a strap holding it in place.
If they're not gas shocks then they'll stay
where you put em.
Jim
Berry
========================================
- ----- Original Message
-----
From: Michael Bulaon <
profilevr4@3000gtvr4.net>
>
My front ECS struts are really bad and I bought a pair today.
>
>
I'm not ready to install them just yet but I have a question.
>
>
It seems that both of the pistons are collapsed and I can move them all
the
> way up or down with some effort.
>
> Just wondering if
this is normal.
>
> It seems normal being that the boxes that they
came in would not be able to
> fit them inside if they were fully
extended.
>
> Can anyone confirm?
>
> Michael
Bulaon
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:49:40
-0400
From: "Michael Bulaon" <
profilevr4@3000gtvr4.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts
before
Ok, according to the service manual the specs for the front struts
are:
Hydraulic, cylindrical double acting type.
I guess this means
that they aren't gas charged, and if so then my shocks
are ok?
Michael
Bulaon.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Berry
[mailto:fastmax@home.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:58 PM
To:
Michael Bulaon;
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.stSubject:
Re: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS
struts
before
Most shocks are pressurized with an inert gas to reduce
foaming
of the oil --- I'm not sure about the stock shocks. Normally a
gas
shock is shipped collapsed with a strap holding it in place.
If
they're not gas shocks then they'll stay where you put em.
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:37:26
-0500
From: "cody" <
overclck@starband.net>
Subject:
RE: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
I got one for
everyone.... Since we are on this subject...
As far as
drivetrain loss goes... (and this may actually explain
somethings,
although someone else will have to do the math)
Would it make
sense that at a static RPM, say 6000 rpm, and in a certain
gear, that the
transmission uses a certain amount of HP just to keep it
spinning, now what I
propose is that measurement at a static RPM may
yield a percentage or static
HP loss at that RPM. What I theorize
though is that this loss may
actually be different while under
acceleration. Now, what someone (not
me for sure) would have to figure
out, is HP loss at any given RPM
instantaneously, because the whole
thing would be accelerating, and we
actually have mass (the
transmission/drivetrain) that we are trying to
accelerate as well. This
is where a lightened driveshaft may come into
play.
Sure, once we have an engine at constant 6K rpm, the transmission
may
lose 75 hp on an AWD car, but what about instantaneous losses. At
a
static RPM, we are measuring things like bearing drag, tire scrub,
and
friction at other places. In an acceleration environment, we would
also
be measuring the loss provided by how much the components
weigh.
Anyone have solutions for both these situations???
-
-Cody
- -----Original Message-----
From:
owner-team3s@team3s.com
[mailto:owner-team3s@team3s.com] On Behalf
Of Zobel, Kurt
Sent: Monday,
October 01, 2001 7:46 PM
To: Darc; Team3S
Subject: RE: Re: Team3S:
Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
The answer is Wrong. ..but now
remember only to drive on HOT days!
kdz
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Darc [mailto:wce@telus.net]
Sent: Monday, October 01,
2001 4:17 PM
To: Team3S
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.
I will take the
quiz...shuffle, shuffle, grimace...
No other variables are noted other
that those which are mentioned. This
is
important. So assume, or consider
absolute, if you cannot assume, that
everything else is the same on the
days noted other than what is
mentioned.
Do not invent new criteria which
have not been included in the question,
or
as any student knows, you get a
failing grade. That does not exempt me
from
failing, but it certainly
should help anyone who doesn't know this, who
is
following me and doesn't
need to make previous mistakes.
Now to the question.
There are
many mods = z (possibly z= w+x+y etc)
There are two different days
with two different temperatures (a and b)
with
a difference in
temperature/factor of T
There are two results (400 and
410)
a gives a result of 400 (a = 400)
b+z
multiplied by T gives a result of 410 (b+z (T)) = 410)
The
difference between these two results is expalined by z plus a
factor
of
whatever the temperature difference is T
Can you determine anything
from this. Yes. There is a difference in
horsepower reading based upon
temperature (T), and modifications (z).
Since
z is a plural
(modifications) more information should be given. If it
was
one
modification, and that modification was tested at the same
temperature
as
a, then one can extrapolate. It is more than one
modification,
however,
and it is tested on a different day with a
different temperature b. So
one
cannot conclude anything regardless of the
information given, other than
to
answer wrong. The answer is wrong given
inadequate information, without
the
need to invent more information.
Period.
Darc
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:56:28
+1200
From: "Steve Cooper" <
scooper@paradise.net.nz>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Cheap con rods for our cars
> 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.
Mine is a 93, 4 bolt Japaneese spec.
I've just had the motor rebuilt, the
crank was not nitrided in the
factory, however it is now, easy done. You
can tell from the colour of the
journals.
Steve
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 07:36:42
EDT
From:
NassiriC@aol.comSubject:
Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Roger
Wrote:
>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 ?????
This is not
technically true - in practice it works, but it's not good
science.
Drivetrain loss is NOT constant at rpm. Here's how a very
experience
engine/car builder explained it to me - I hope I remember this
correctly:
Drivetrains, (for the sake of this discussion, this
includes everything from
the crank output shaft back to the tires)
experience something called the
'hydraulic' or 'shock' effect. I'm
sure everyone has tried to compress a
shock absorber with their hands, no
matter how hard you push, it compresses
at the same rate (constant
velocity). With the shock absorber, if you apply
5lbs or 500lbs, it
compresses at the same rate - roughly. To varying
degrees,
drivetrains experience this same effect, though obviously not as
dramatically as a shock absorber. While the hydraulic effect is nearly
99.9%
effective at stabilizing compression/expansion velocities in a shock
absorber, it is about .5 to 1.5% effective in drivetrains - higher in auto
trannys with torque converters. This means that high pressure on the
top of
the piston (torque) does not translate into equally faster rotation
of the
crank shaft - put another way; the piston is pushing 100% harder, but
the
crank shaft is only moving 99% faster.
What does this mean in
practice? If you figure out all the math, (and I
have) what you start
to notice is that the hydraulic effect tends to push the
torque curve down
the rpm scale. Peak torque may remain the same, but
because it is
produced at lower rpm, peak HP (which is mathematically derived
from torque
and rpm) is lower. If you do the math you will see that this has
vast
implication, and can quickly make your head spin. Add to this the fact
that the 'hydraulic' effect varies at different rpms and you'll see why
professional race teams have very expensive software programs that calculate
this whole mess for them.
So here are the facts:
1. The % loss
method of calculating crank HP is basically useless if you've
added
power. A 100 hp engine that loses 20 hp to the rear wheels will not
lose 200 hp if you bump the power up to 1000 hp.
2. Constant hp lose at
rpm is not technically accurate, but it is as close as
you can get, just
don't rely on it when you've added a lot of hp.
3. The coast-down method is
close, but is still not accurate, especially when
large hp increases are
used.
Roger Wrote:
>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.
No need to test it, 18" wheels do rob
hp. From the tests I've seen it only
adds up to a few hp (2 - 4), and
primarily has to do with the fact that 18"
wheels are heavier then 16"
wheels. You'll get more performance gains by
reducing the over-all
diameter of your drive tires which effectively raises
the gear ratio
(numerically). Going from a 23" diameter tire to a 20" tire
is like
changing the differential gear from 3.3 to 3.8 - you will notice a
big
difference in 0-60 acceleration.
In my opinion CF drive shafts have no
business on a street car. They are
just too fragile, they aren't
designed to stand up to everyday driving
hazards.
Cyrus
Nassiri
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:06:25
-0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Re: Team3S: Misconceptions about drivetrain losses
Sorry
Roger/everyone those numbers were quoted at peak HP about 5700 rpms in
both
cases. Roger what you need to keep in mind here my MKIV has LW FW and
a
CF DS so there was less rotational weight compared to a BPU+ with out
those
mods hence more RWHP (more efficient driveline)
www.boostaholic.com, This guy has
one of the baddest BPU++ supra's in TX
allot of kinda useful info too.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Gerl
[SMTP:roger.gerl@bluewin.ch]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 6:37
PM
> To: 'Team 3S'
> 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 08:21:57
-0500
From: "Willis, Charles E." <
cewillis@TexasChildrensHospital.org>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts
before
If you can move the shaft over all it's travel without a lot of
effort on
your part, they are defective - that's how a blown strut
feels.
If you have to exert yourself to move the shaft, this is
normal.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
Michael Bulaon [SMTP:profilevr4@3000gtvr4.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 01,
2001 7:50 PM
> To:
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Subject: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts
>
before
>
> My front ECS struts are really bad and I bought a pair
today.
>
> I'm not ready to install them just yet but I have a
question.
>
> It seems that both of the pistons are collapsed and I
can move them all
> the
> way up or down with some effort.
>
> Just wondering if this is normal.
>
> It seems normal
being that the boxes that they came in would not be able
> to
> fit
them inside if they were fully extended.
>
> Can anyone
confirm?
>
>
> Michael Bulaon
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 06:10:34
-0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Lucius <
stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts before
I
purchased new ECS struts and shocks a few months ago (Tall. Mitsu,
~$136
each). They did not come "compressed". I was able to move the
rod all the way
down and it of course extended all the way back out.
Your similar experience
suggests this is normal. The front struts I
replaced had leaked badly and it
was extremely easy to move the rod.
My strut/shock R&R web
page:
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius8/j8-2-shockremoval.htmAdditional
info: I had to remove the struts maybe 6 or 7 times for
various reasons after
switching to Ground Control springs. The first
3 times I took the car in for
alignment. Only the first time did it
need adjusting. I found that if you
carefully note the camber marks
on the lower strut and bolt and replace the
bolt in the *same*
position that alignment does not change noticeably. Care
also needs
to be taken in locating and torquing the top three nuts. Also a
one
inch drop did not cause alignment to be out of spec. The rear
shocks
do not affect alignment.
Jeff Lucius,
www.stealth316.com- ----- Original
Message -----
From: "Michael Bulaon" <
profilevr4@3000gtvr4.net>
To:
<
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Monday, October 01, 2001 6:49 PM
Subject: Team3S: Question for anyone who has
installed new ECS struts
before
My front ECS struts are really bad and
I bought a pair today.
I'm not ready to install them just yet but I have
a question.
It seems that both of the pistons are collapsed and I can
move them
all the way up or down with some effort.
Just wondering if
this is normal.
It seems normal being that the boxes that they came in
would not be
able to fit them inside if they were fully extended.
Can
anyone confirm?
Michael Bulaon
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:27:19
-0500
From: "Willis, Charles E." <
cewillis@TexasChildrensHospital.org>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts
before
Remember everybody, these are DAMPERS, they just IMPEDE the
movement of the
suspension. The springs (and the weight of the car)
bring the car back to
its original position.
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Willis, Charles E.
>
[SMTP:cewillis@tch-relay-1.texaschildrenshospital.org]
> Sent: Tuesday,
October 02, 2001 8:22 AM
> To:
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS
>
struts before
>
> If you can move the shaft over all it's
travel without a lot of effort on
> your part, they are defective - that's
how a blown strut feels.
> If you have to exert yourself to move the
shaft, this is normal.
>
> Chuck
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:13:56
-0400
From: "Michael Bulaon" <
profilevr4@3000gtvr4.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts
before
It does require some effort to move them fully up or down but
still fairly
easy. Also at the top of the assembly, there are holes. At
one point, I
noticed a drip of oil seep out of one of the holes as I was
moving the
piston. If it dead leak oil, there is no indication inside
the cardboard
box or on the strut itself of any leakage.
Thanks for
the responses,
Michael Bulaon
- -----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-team3s@team3s.com
[mailto:owner-team3s@team3s.com]On Behalf
Of Willis, Charles E.
Sent:
Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:22 AM
To:
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.stSubject:
RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS
struts
before
If you can move the shaft over all it's travel without a lot
of effort on
your part, they are defective - that's how a blown strut
feels.
If you have to exert yourself to move the shaft, this is
normal.
Chuck
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:17:25
-0400
From: "Michael Bulaon" <
profilevr4@3000gtvr4.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS struts
before
Mine did not come "compressed" either, but I can fully compress
either strut
and they do not return to position. Does this still seem
normal?
Michael Bulaon.
- -----Original Message-----
From:
owner-team3s@team3s.com
[mailto:owner-team3s@team3s.com]On Behalf
Of Jeff Lucius
Sent: Tuesday,
October 02, 2001 9:11 AM
To:
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.stSubject:
Re: Team3S: Question for anyone who has installed new ECS
struts
before
I purchased new ECS struts and shocks a few months ago (Tall.
Mitsu,
~$136 each). They did not come "compressed". I was able to move
the
rod all the way down and it of course extended all the way back
out.
Your similar experience suggests this is normal. The front struts
I
replaced had leaked badly and it was extremely easy to move the
rod.
My strut/shock R&R web page:
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius8/j8-2-shockremoval.htmAdditional
info: I had to remove the struts maybe 6 or 7 times for
various reasons after
switching to Ground Control springs. The first
3 times I took the car in for
alignment. Only the first time did it
need adjusting. I found that if you
carefully note the camber marks
on the lower strut and bolt and replace the
bolt in the *same*
position that alignment does not change noticeably. Care
also needs
to be taken in locating and torquing the top three nuts. Also a
one
inch drop did not cause alignment to be out of spec. The rear
shocks
do not affect alignment.
Jeff Lucius,
www.stealth316.com***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:33:47
+0200
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
RE: Re: Team3S: Drivetrain losses, dyno measurnment
Thanks all for your
input on this topic, but it is really hard for me to
explain what I mean or
better what I learned during the years having cars
on the dyno (and also
seen some failing with big oil leaks and so on)
1. Quiz ... YOU ARE ALL
WINNERS :-)
Ok here the initial question again :
> 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 ?
Only saying the mod gave me 10hp is
really wrong in this case. And I
minimized the variables as much a possible
as Darc pointed out very
professional :-) Temperature, humidity, baro
pressure are measured by the
dyno meter and entered to any equations. This
is where the crank hp now
comes in play and its correction regarding the
sensor values.
When the first dyno run (400hp to the ground) was done the
crank hp was
determined by the coast down method. This hp then got corrected
by DIN (or
SAE in the US) regarding the sensors inputs. Result : 460hp SAE
hp (loss :
50hp)
On the second run (410hp to the ground) Result : 510hp
SAE (loss : 60hp)
The real difference at the crank therefore is 50hp and
not 10hp. This due
to the SAE correction that uses the ambient for proper
calculation what
produces comparable values at the end. Depending on what
year of SAE or DIN
correction the tranny is included as well. At DIN 70020
correction tranny
is not included in the calc and the resulting crank number
is higher. In
SAE correction other factors are not included as well as the
standard
changes are hard to track.
2. Why crank hp ?
I know
that many of you don't care about crank hp and it is not my
intention to
convince you but I like to explain why we need it for a real
tuning of the
car. Under the line, it is much more important to know how
much hp the
mod(s) really gave and this can only be done by correcting the
crank hp. To
get corrected wheel hp you then deduct the loss from crank
what is what
people are looking for. Here some dyno operators just enter a
value that
they think the car has when no coast down is made. This is the
case on such
3 second pulls where the car is measured from 5000 to 6000 in
3rd gear. Not
good without the ambient and coast down information but
results in 1050hp -
This indeed is then more guessing than really measuring :-/
3. Why is rpm
important ?
RPM is the base figure everything is measured against. hp
calculated out of
torque, loss, knock, IDC... everything is based on what
value is read at
what rpm. We only know the power to correct when we know at
what rpm as
there is also one specific loss. With this we can also say a car
makes peak
hp at 6000rpm. I fully agree that the integral over the power
band is what
finally makes the car faster or the torque curve what finally
accelerates
the car.
Some input from you guys :
At 00:37
02.10.2001 -0500, cody wrote:
>Sure, once we have an engine at constant 6K
rpm, the transmission may
>lose 75 hp on an AWD car, but what about
instantaneous losses. At a
>static RPM, we are measuring things like
bearing drag, tire scrub, and
>friction at other places. In an
acceleration environment, we would also
>be measuring the loss provided by
how much the components weigh.
>
>Anyone have solutions for both
these situations???
No solution. Torque is needed to keep a rotational
mass moving, more torque
is needed to accelerate the mass. But this torque
is measured due to the
simulated full load on the wheels. But I also wonder
how much "shock"-loss
a tranny has when the clutch is dumped at 6800 !
When we want to test at a
specific rpm the dyno is locked in then at this
rpm and boost or other
parameters can be changed having the car under full
load. This is like
driving uphill with the throttle full open and the car
keeps the same
speed. This is full load and needs the full torque the engine
can deliver
to keep them rotating (the drums are electrical brakened while
the
resistance is representing the torque then).
At 19:12 01.10.2001
-0400, Jason Barnhart wrote:
>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.
No I never dynoed an engine, although I was
with them when they dynoed some
but never had one of mine on the
crate.
I modified my engine and interestingly, power loss stayed the same
even
with more than a year in between the dyno runs. The difference at the
crank
was more than 40hp therefore no engine dyno necessary, as the
drivetrain
loss curve is known for my car ! This gives me the ability to put
any mod
onto the engine and immediatly see the results. They are then facts
and not
opinions. Facts are provided on the dyno sheets posted on my site.
Go and
learn. I say your opinion is leading you into the wrong direction. It
is
your opinion that more engine power produces more stress to the tranny,
but
why then showed my dyno sessions no difference in drivetrain loss while
engine power and torque increased a good amount ?? Therefore the additional
stress had no effect on the trannies power consumption.
Its BS when
saying that I haven't double dynoed my own car when you know
nothing. You
start flaming me by arguing that my results are an estimate
when I have dyno
plots in my hand and you nothing ! I had about 16
different cars on the dyno
and only about 7 were 3S cars and a back-to-back
test is often only possible
after a cool down period of about 15-30 minutes
so we change the cars on the
drums after each run.
>Roger, put the crack pipe down. I think
it'd be kinda silly to say we lose
>25hp more through OUR AWD system
because Audi loses 25hp more through THEIR
>AWD system. The 'welded
diff' method I mentioned is widely used in the DSM
>scene by people who
own dyno's, have made MANY more dyno runs than you have,
>and have SERIOUS
horsepower numbers and SERIOUS 1/4 mile numbers to back it
>up. Can
you think of a better way to dyno an AWD car on a 2WD dyno?
Stop
>being so argumentative.
Stop beeing flaming me and please
reread the rules of the list.
Also try to show facts as well as I hope you
understand what an example is.
I never ever wrote anything that the Audis
loss is the same as ours....
Argh, I made an example and you put it the
other way back in my
mouth....read and ask if you don't understand, please
never interpret !
It's easier to write a short explanation than having to
find the right
words when one shoots to another !
Through this
thread I learned that still a lot of people are speaking of a
% power loss
through the drivetrain what is not correct. When I had my
first car on the
dyno (Le Baron 2.2 Turbo, about 10 years ago) I knew
nothing and learn over
the years as well as I had to rethink some stuff
that was different than I
thought. And on some stuff I was ignorant and
finally learned the hard way
just because I was not interested in the facts.
Roger
93'3000GT
TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:02:46
-0400
From: "Andy Carberry" <
acarberry@snet.net>
Subject: Team3S:
Auto climate control question
Hello
All,
I was installing a guage set
and took out my climate control unit
and noticed a small switch in the top
right corner of it. Anyone know what
this does?
Just
wondering,
Andy
PS when installing those indiglo faces be careful not
to over tighen the
face screws. There will be a small seperation bubble
if tighened to much
:( (been there done it)
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:35:57
+0100
From: "Baker, Simon" <
Simon.Baker@mobisphere.com>
Subject:
Team3S: climate control smell
Hi Guy's
Everytime I turn on the
climate control, i get the most horribie smell. I
does not matter if this is
on cool or warm mode.
The smell lasts for 2/3 mins then goes
away
any ideas?
simon
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:43:10
-0400
From: "Jeff VanOrsdal" <
jeffv@1nce.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
climate control smell
This could be built up mildew and other funk inside
the ducts. The best
thing to do is start the car and get it up to
operating temperature. Then,
close all the windows and crank the heat
up to full power. Let the car sit
for about 10 minutes and hopefully
this will dry out everything in the
ducts.
Jeff V.
1991 Stealth ESX
Twin Turbo
jeffv@1nce.com-
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-team3s@team3s.com
[mailto:owner-team3s@team3s.com]On Behalf
Of Baker, Simon
Sent: Tuesday,
October 02, 2001 10:36 AM
To: 'Team 3SI'
Subject: Team3S: climate control
smell
Hi Guy's
Everytime I turn on the climate control, i get the
most horribie smell. I
does not matter if this is on cool or warm
mode.
The smell lasts for 2/3 mins then goes away
any
ideas?
simon
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:44:15
-0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: climate control smell
moisture/mildew somewhere in the
system... not sure how to get rid of it
though. May want to leak for
leaks in the a/c evaporative section while you
are at it
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: Baker, Simon
[SMTP:Simon.Baker@mobisphere.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 10:36
AM
> To: 'Team 3SI'
> Subject: Team3S: climate control smell
>
> Hi Guy's
>
> Everytime I turn on the climate control, i
get the most horribie smell. I
> does not matter if this is on cool or
warm mode.
>
> The smell lasts for 2/3 mins then goes away
>
> any ideas?
>
> simon
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:45:02
-0400
From: "Darren Schilberg" <
dschilberg@pobox.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: climate control smell
Simon -- I think this might be in the
archives but hard to find since I
forget the keywords. I thought it had
something to do with the
condenser or something up behind the footwell that
just goes bad (like
the filter or something). Making your own mixture
of some ammonia and
cleaner or a similar step to that (maybe there are
commercial "A/C
system cleaners" that purge out some bad air).
I would
say take it to the dealer but an A/C check is usually upwards of
$35 and more
if they want to give you a new charge of coolant.
- --Flash!
1995
VR-4
www.speedtoys.com/~dschilberg-
-----Original Message-----
From: Baker, Simon
Sent: Tuesday, October 02,
2001 10:36 AM
Everytime I turn on the climate control, i get the
most horribie smell.
I
does not matter if this is on cool or warm
mode.
The smell lasts for 2/3 mins then goes away
any ideas?
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 07:30:21
-0700
From: "Jim Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
climate control smell
Miscellaneous molds and mildew ---- typical for an
older A/C. They make
some sprays [deodorant type stuff] you can spray into
the evaporator to
keep the smell down and mask the odor. There is also a
procedure where
they inject a foam into the air boxes which sanitizes the air
handling
system ---- some dealers use it, I assume they want serious bucks
for
this cleanup.
Jim
berry
============================================
- ----- Original
Message -----
From: Baker, Simon <
Simon.Baker@mobisphere.com>
>
Hi Guy's
>
> Everytime I turn on the climate control, i get the
most horribie smell. I
> does not matter if this is on cool or warm
mode.
>
> The smell lasts for 2/3 mins then goes away
>
> any ideas?
>
> simon
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:38:07
-0700
From: "Darc" <
wce@telus.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
climate control smell
Further to recent Jim's post... there is a new
product in an spray can ,
which I recently perused at Wal-Mart. You
spray it into the exterior air
intakes while you have the aircon running. I
believe it ran around $20
Canadian, so say 50 cents US
;-))
Best
Darc
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim
Berry" <
fastmax@home.com>
To:
"Baker, Simon" <
Simon.Baker@mobisphere.com>;
"'Team 3SI'"
<
Team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Team3S: climate control
smell
> Miscellaneous molds and mildew ---- typical for an older A/C.
They make
> some sprays [deodorant type stuff] you can spray into the
evaporator to
> keep the smell down and mask the odor. There is also a
procedure where
> they inject a foam into the air boxes which sanitizes
the air handling
> system ---- some dealers use it, I assume they want
serious bucks for
> this
cleanup.
>
> Jim
berry
> ============================================
> -----
Original Message -----
> From: Baker, Simon <
Simon.Baker@mobisphere.com>
>
>
> Hi Guy's
> >
> > Everytime I turn on the climate control,
i get the most horribie smell.
I
> > does not matter if this is on
cool or warm mode.
> >
> > The smell lasts for 2/3 mins then
goes away
> >
> > any ideas?
> >
> >
simon
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:00:54
-0700
From: "Watkins, Jim" <
jim.watkins@terayon.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Fuel Guage
I have tested a known good 3KGT fuel pump/guage
and got the following
readings from the sending unit at full tank:
Wire
Color Voltage
- ---------- -------
Black/Blue 8.5 V
Yellow 0
V
Yellow/Blue 13.47 V
Black/Red 0 V
Black 0 V (chassis
ground)
It appears that Yellow/Blue is the fuel pump supply
voltage. I'm guessing
that Black/Blue is the fuel guage
indication. Only problem with this theory
is that Black/Blue on my bad
car reads 8.76 V and the voltage didn't change
from nearly full to nearly
empty. The needle reads about 1/8 full when full
and reads E when the
low warning sensor turns on. I don't have access to
the good car any
longer.
Any ideas before resorting to the dealer?
Jim
Watkins
95 3000GT Spyder VR4
- -----Original Message-----
From:
Jeff Lucius [mailto:stealthman92@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19,
2001 10:18 AM
To:
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.stSubject:
Re: Team3S: Fuel Guage
The fuel gauge and low warning sensor are both
integral with and sold
with the fuel pump assembly (with pump) as one part
for a list price
of $465.87 - MB698858 for turbo and MB698857 for the other
models. If
it is the sending unit, then I bet it can be repaired. It looks to
me
(from tearing these apart) that the float runs a "needle" across
a
wound coil of wire - a "variable resistor" I think its called
or
something like that. It is also possible that a wire is partly
shorted
or grounded somewhere. Not sure how you would check the
gauge, but you can
check the sender with a volt-ohm-meter. Start at
the sender and work
forward.
For pics of the assemblies:
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius8/j8-2-fuelpumps.htmFor
pump removal:
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius/2-fuelpump.htmFor
part numbers, prices, diagrams:
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/blucius/b-2-mitchell.htmJeff
Lucius,
www.stealth316.com-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Watkins, Jim" <
jim.watkins@terayon.com>
To:
"Team3S (E-mail)" <
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:03 AM
Subject: Team3S: Fuel Guage
My
fuel guage has failed recently. It indicates empty now when I
know
there is over 1/2 tank. I haven't checked the CAPS program yet
to see
whether the fuel pump and guage sending unit are separate part
numbers.
Does anybody know? The yellow light is not part of the
same
electronics, right? Any possibility that this would be an
electrical
problem and not the fault of the sending unit?
Jim
95 3000GT VR4
Spyder
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:03:58
-0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Fuel Guage
Hey Jim just another random thought... (I have
alot of these) but maybe the
voltage output increases as the amount of fuel
decreases? I could just be
losing my mind though
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: Watkins, Jim
[SMTP:jim.watkins@terayon.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:01
PM
> To: 'Jeff Lucius';
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Fuel Guage
>
> I have tested a known good 3KGT
fuel pump/guage and got the following
> readings from the sending unit at
full tank:
> Wire Color Voltage
> ---------- -------
>
Black/Blue 8.5 V
> Yellow 0 V
> Yellow/Blue 13.47 V
>
Black/Red 0 V
> Black 0 V (chassis ground)
>
> It appears
that Yellow/Blue is the fuel pump supply voltage. I'm guessing
>
that Black/Blue is the fuel guage indication. Only problem with
this
> theory
> is that Black/Blue on my bad car reads 8.76 V and
the voltage didn't
> change
> from nearly full to nearly
empty. The needle reads about 1/8 full when
> full
> and reads
E when the low warning sensor turns on. I don't have access to
> the
good car any longer.
>
> Any ideas before resorting to the
dealer?
>
> Jim Watkins
> 95 3000GT Spyder VR4
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Lucius
[mailto:stealthman92@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001
10:18 AM
> To:
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Fuel Guage
>
>
> The fuel gauge and low
warning sensor are both integral with and sold
> with the fuel pump
assembly (with pump) as one part for a list price
> of $465.87 - MB698858
for turbo and MB698857 for the other models. If
> it is the sending unit,
then I bet it can be repaired. It looks to me
> (from tearing these apart)
that the float runs a "needle" across a
> wound coil of wire - a "variable
resistor" I think its called or
> something like that. It is also possible
that a wire is partly
> shorted or grounded somewhere. Not sure how you
would check the
> gauge, but you can check the sender with a
volt-ohm-meter. Start at
> the sender and work forward.
>
>
For pics of the assemblies:
>
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius8/j8-2-fuelpumps.htm>
> For pump removal:
>
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius/2-fuelpump.htm>
> For part numbers, prices, diagrams:
>
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/blucius/b-2-mitchell.htm>
> Jeff Lucius,
www.stealth316.com***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:26:06
-0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Lucius <
stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Fuel Guage
Jim,
Look at the wires carefully again.
**Trace them out on the assembly.**
My earlier email below shows
the wiring and the "devices" connected
on my '92 TT. Maybe they changed
colors for your assembly? There is
no guessing though when you look at the
assembly directly.
For pics of the assemblies:
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius8/j8-2-fuelpumps.htmFor
pump removal:
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius/2-fuelpump.htmJeff
Lucius,
www.stealth316.com-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
stealthman92@yahoo.com>
To:
<
team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Cc:
"cody" <
overclck@starband.net>
Sent:
Saturday, July 28, 2001 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Team3S: Rewire Fuel
Pump
<snip>
For my '92 TT assembly:
Black/red =
ground
Black = ground on pump assembly
frame
Black/blue = power to pump (pump is grounded to assembly
frame)
Yellow = fuel gauge
Yellow/blue = low
fuel warning light
<snip>
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Watkins, Jim" <
jim.watkins@terayon.com>
To:
"'Jeff Lucius'" <
stealthman92@yahoo.com>;
<
Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 02, 2001 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Fuel Guage
I
have tested a known good 3KGT fuel pump/guage and got the following
readings
from the sending unit at full tank:
Wire Color Voltage
- ----------
-------
Black/Blue 8.5 V
Yellow 0 V
Yellow/Blue 13.47 V
Black/Red 0
V
Black 0 V (chassis ground)
It appears that Yellow/Blue is the fuel
pump supply voltage. I'm
guessing that Black/Blue is the fuel guage
indication. Only problem
with this theory is that Black/Blue on my bad
car reads 8.76 V and
the voltage didn't change from nearly full to nearly
empty. The
needle reads about 1/8 full when full and reads E when the
low
warning sensor turns on. I don't have access to the good car
any
longer.
Any ideas before resorting to the dealer?
Jim
Watkins
95 3000GT Spyder VR4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:45:38
-0700
From: "Watkins, Jim" <
jim.watkins@terayon.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Fuel Guage
Jeff,
Seems strange to me that the pump supply
voltage would be only 8.5, but I
didn't test it under load, just idle.
Thanks for pointing out the pictures
again. I will try to remove the
unit leaving the high pressure hose
attached since I cannot crack the
nut on the other end without fear of
destoying the hard line. I'm
sure my colors are not different than yours,
just my assumptions ;-)
I'm sure it will become clearer when I get the
pump
removed.
Jim
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:19:34
-0500
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <
mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Fuel Guage
> Seems strange to me that the pump supply
voltage would be
> only 8.5, but I didn't test it under load, just
idle.
There's an inline resistor in the power supply line at RPMs below
2500-3000
or so that drops the supply voltage to keep the pump quieter and
supposedly
increase longevity. 8.5V is about right for that...
Rev up the car and it
should change to around 13V.
- -Matt
'95
3000GT Spyder VR4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:43:53
-0400
From: "Bonnett, Wayne A" <
WABonnett@upslogistics.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
Is there a benefit of having a rear strut
tower bar? If so, can your
explain what the benefit(s) would
be?
By the way, thanks to everyone that replied and gave me their
thoughts and
suggestions about racing tires/wheels. Everyone said
pretty much the same
thing: 'Leave the car alone for now'. That I will
do, unless the rear strut
bar might be something I should look into.
All comments and suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
Wayne A.
Bonnett
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:50:41
-0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
From what I have seen on my old MKIV....
NO.... but it made a very handy
place to attach the upper two straps for the
driver and front passenger 5
point racing harnesses. In all honesty a
set of RH CP-035's (17/8.5) with
some 255 R compound race tires would
be a sound investment over any
suspension upgrades you could make to our
cars. From what I have seen only
about 2% of us could truly "outdrive"
the stock suspension. This is IMHO of
course. Oh yeah FYI RH
claims that a 17 inch CP-035 (not sure on width)
weighs only 12.53 lbs. or
5.69 kg (for you metric folks). Now that is a
light wheel
www.racinghart.comwww.dazzmotorsports.com>
-----Original Message-----
> From: Bonnett, Wayne A
[SMTP:WABonnett@upslogistics.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 1:44
PM
> To:
team3s-digest@speedracer.speedtoys.com;
3sracers@speedtoys.com>
Subject: Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
>
> Is there a benefit of
having a rear strut tower bar? If so, can your
> explain what
the benefit(s) would be?
>
> By the way, thanks to everyone
that replied and gave me their thoughts and
> suggestions about racing
tires/wheels. Everyone said pretty much the same
> thing: 'Leave the
car alone for now'. That I will do, unless the rear
> strut
>
bar might be something I should look into.
>
> All comments
and suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Wayne
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:00:07
-0400
From: "Darren Schilberg" <
dschilberg@pobox.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
Reminder that physics does not take a
vacation. Front and rear strut
tower bars are meant to go side-to-side
in their movement and not front
to back. DO NOT attach a racing harness
to a normal rear strut tower
bar as it will bend it like a straw if the
harnesses are ever put to
use.
The only way this is possible is using
a method like Jim Berry who has
an absolutely massive rear-strut tower bar
that looks like a small
railroad crossing bridge with all sorts of beefy
material and stiffness
(contact him for the details but I think it is a Road
Race Engineering
bar of something).
Plus, no racing body ever allows
harnesses to go over anything except a
rollbar or a harness bar. Just
be safe out there.
Yes it is possible to ourdrive the stock
suspension but not for the
majority of people.
Yes those wheels are
light but remember that they must withstand a 2-ton
sled hammering into a
corner at 60 mph and up (88 feet per second) so
that is a lot of force at any
one time. Don't get the aluminum foil
ones but make sure they hold the
car's weight.
- --Flash!
1995 VR-4 w/rollbar, race seat, dual 5-point
harnesses, 17" 3000GT SL
wheels (track wheels), Yokohama A032 255/45/17
(track tires)
www.speedtoys.com/~dschilberg-
-----Original Message-----
From: Furman, Russell
Sent: Tuesday, October
02, 2001 2:51 PM
>From what I have seen on my old MKIV....
NO.... but it made a very
handy
place to attach the upper two straps for
the driver and front passenger
5
point racing harnesses. In all
honesty a set of RH CP-035's (17/8.5)
with
some 255 R compound race
tires would be a sound investment over any
suspension upgrades you could make
to our cars. From what I have seen
only
about 2% of us could truly
"outdrive" the stock suspension. This is
IMHO of
course. Oh
yeah FYI RH claims that a 17 inch CP-035 (not sure on width)
weighs only
12.53 lbs. or 5.69 kg (for you metric folks). Now that is a
light
wheel
www.racinghart.comwww.dazzmotorsports.com***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:23:18
-0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
Darren, I agree about using a sturdy
wheel on a road course.... that is why
they caught my attention they are cold
spun forged aluminum [not tin foil ;)
] as for bending like a
straw the rear bar was a solid piece alloy pipe
not a cusco bar.... I had
thought about that ahead of time, unfortunately I
never got around to having
it teched or racing with it. On the street I
felt no difference as far
stiffness went. What made a huge difference with
the top off on the
MKIV was A DO-LUCK floor brace got rid of that mid frame
twist that I felt
going over speed bumps ect... at an angle.
I must apologize when I send
in some of my responses I do not clearly
explain myself. I am one off those
people that believes in brevity of
speech, but I am learning to be more
detailed when replying to this list.
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Darren Schilberg [SMTP:dschilberg@pobox.com]
> Sent: Tuesday,
October 02, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: 'Team 3S'
> Subject: RE: Team3S: Rear
Strut Tower Bar
>
> Reminder that physics does not take a
vacation. Front and rear strut
> tower bars are meant to go
side-to-side in their movement and not front
> to back. DO NOT
attach a racing harness to a normal rear strut tower
> bar as it will bend
it like a straw if the harnesses are ever put to
> use.
>
>
The only way this is possible is using a method like Jim Berry who has
>
an absolutely massive rear-strut tower bar that looks like a small
>
railroad crossing bridge with all sorts of beefy material and stiffness
>
(contact him for the details but I think it is a Road Race Engineering
>
bar of something).
>
> Plus, no racing body ever allows harnesses
to go over anything except a
> rollbar or a harness bar. Just be
safe out there.
>
>
> Yes it is possible to ourdrive the
stock suspension but not for the
> majority of people.
>
>
Yes those wheels are light but remember that they must withstand a 2-ton
>
sled hammering into a corner at 60 mph and up (88 feet per second) so
>
that is a lot of force at any one time. Don't get the aluminum
foil
> ones but make sure they hold the car's weight.
>
>
--Flash!
> 1995 VR-4 w/rollbar, race seat, dual 5-point harnesses, 17"
3000GT SL
> wheels (track wheels), Yokohama A032 255/45/17 (track
tires)
>
www.speedtoys.com/~dschilberg>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Furman, Russell
> Sent:
Tuesday, October 02, 2001 2:51 PM
>
> >From what I have
seen on my old MKIV.... NO.... but it made a very
> handy
> place to
attach the upper two straps for the driver and front passenger
> 5
>
point racing harnesses. In all honesty a set of RH CP-035's
(17/8.5)
> with
> some 255 R compound race tires would be a sound
investment over any
> suspension upgrades you could make to our
cars. From what I have seen
> only
> about 2% of us could
truly "outdrive" the stock suspension. This is
> IMHO of
>
course. Oh yeah FYI RH claims that a 17 inch CP-035 (not sure on
width)
> weighs only 12.53 lbs. or 5.69 kg (for you metric folks).
Now that is a
> light wheel
>
>
www.racinghart.com>
www.dazzmotorsports.com***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:31:09
-0500
From: "cody" <
overclck@starband.net>
Subject:
Team3S: OT: FS: Airbag, SRS ECU, Steering Wheel, Radio Controls.
It’s all
on Ebay right now. Here are the links…
SRS Airbag 3000GT 91-93 1st
Gen
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=596087750
SRS Control Unit ECU 91-93 Mitsubishi 3000GT
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5960879763000GT
Stealth Radio Controls 91-93
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5960881523000GT
Stealth Steering Wheel 91-93
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=59608775010%
off for all list members should you win the auction, just kindly
drop me an
e-mail and let me know you are bidding on it to start with.
-
-Cody
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:45:15
-0400
From: Ken Stanton <
tt007ken@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
Well Russell, I do believe that your
"brevity" brought up an interesting point.
I had thought about attaching the
harnesses there (briefly), and realized it,
but I'm sure it's a good thing it
came up. Someone may benefit from the
discussion =)
Ken
Stanton
'91 Pearl White R/T TT
"Furman, Russell" wrote:
>
Darren, I agree about using a sturdy wheel on a road course.... that is
why
> they caught my attention they are cold spun forged aluminum [not tin
foil ;)
> ] as for bending like a straw the rear bar was a
solid piece alloy pipe
> not a cusco bar.... I had thought about that
ahead of time, unfortunately I
> never got around to having it teched or
racing with it. On the street I
> felt no difference as far
stiffness went. What made a huge difference with
> the top off on
the MKIV was A DO-LUCK floor brace got rid of that mid frame
> twist that
I felt going over speed bumps ect... at an angle.
>
> I must
apologize when I send in some of my responses I do not clearly
> explain
myself. I am one off those people that believes in brevity of
> speech,
but I am learning to be more detailed when replying to this list.
> >
-----Original Message-----
> > From: Darren Schilberg
[SMTP:dschilberg@pobox.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:00
PM
> > To: 'Team 3S'
> >
Subject: RE: Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
>
>
> > Reminder that physics does not take a vacation. Front
and rear strut
> > tower bars are meant to go side-to-side in their
movement and not front
> > to back. DO NOT attach a racing
harness to a normal rear strut tower
> > bar as it will bend it like a
straw if the harnesses are ever put to
> > use.
> >
>
> The only way this is possible is using a method like Jim Berry who
has
> > an absolutely massive rear-strut tower bar that looks like a
small
> > railroad crossing bridge with all sorts of beefy material and
stiffness
> > (contact him for the details but I think it is a Road
Race Engineering
> > bar of something).
> >
> > Plus,
no racing body ever allows harnesses to go over anything except a
> >
rollbar or a harness bar. Just be safe out there.
> >
>
>
> > Yes it is possible to ourdrive the stock suspension but not
for the
> > majority of people.
> >
> > Yes those
wheels are light but remember that they must withstand a 2-ton
> > sled
hammering into a corner at 60 mph and up (88 feet per second) so
> >
that is a lot of force at any one time. Don't get the aluminum
foil
> > ones but make sure they hold the car's weight.
>
>
> > --Flash!
> > 1995 VR-4 w/rollbar, race seat, dual
5-point harnesses, 17" 3000GT SL
> > wheels (track wheels), Yokohama
A032 255/45/17 (track tires)
> >
www.speedtoys.com/~dschilberg>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Furman,
Russell
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 2:51 PM
>
>
> > >From what I have seen on my old MKIV.... NO.... but it
made a very
> > handy
> > place to attach the upper two straps
for the driver and front passenger
> > 5
> > point racing
harnesses. In all honesty a set of RH CP-035's (17/8.5)
> >
with
> > some 255 R compound race tires would be a sound investment
over any
> > suspension upgrades you could make to our cars. From
what I have seen
> > only
> > about 2% of us could truly
"outdrive" the stock suspension. This is
> > IMHO of
> >
course. Oh yeah FYI RH claims that a 17 inch CP-035 (not sure on
width)
> > weighs only 12.53 lbs. or 5.69 kg (for you metric
folks). Now that is a
> > light wheel
> >
> >
www.racinghart.com> >
www.dazzmotorsports.com***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:04:52
-0400
From: "Darren Schilberg" <
dschilberg@pobox.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
Well I just don't want people to see the
archives and think it is okay
to do that so I had to throw up my arms and
complain.
And I remember watching Mr. Wizard when he hung a 5# weight
from a bar
(solid)5 feet long suspended at its ends and then a 5# weight from
a
pipe (hollow). The bar bent in half and fell off the table but the
pipe
was more rigid.
I can't help but think this is the same that a
solid strut tower bar
will have vs. a hollow style. I don't know about
them since I have not
installed them but I just wanted to bring that
up.
Thanks for describing the wheels too. Those sound like a dream
for us
racers.
- --Flash!
1995 VR-4
www.speedtoys.com/~dschilberg-
-----Original Message-----
From: Furman, Russell
Sent: Tuesday, October
02, 2001 4:23 PM
Darren, I agree about using a sturdy wheel on a
road course.... that is
why
they caught my attention they are cold spun
forged aluminum [not tin
foil ;)
] as for bending like a straw
the rear bar was a solid piece alloy
pipe
not a cusco bar.... I had
thought about that ahead of time,
unfortunately I
never got around to
having it teched or racing with it. On the street I
felt no difference
as far stiffness went. What made a huge difference
with
the top off
on the MKIV was A DO-LUCK floor brace got rid of that mid
frame
twist that
I felt going over speed bumps ect... at an angle.
I must apologize when I
send in some of my responses I do not clearly
explain myself. I am one off
those people that believes in brevity of
speech, but I am learning to be more
detailed when replying to this
list.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:13:12
-0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
No problem Darren, I knew what you were
getting at :) See at heart I am a
road racer unfortunately I lack the
skills (right now) and the time to
aggressively pursue this. But
anytime I mod a car for myself or a friend I
go from the mentality of
performance/function first then appearance. As for
they RH wheel I just
looked at them and they do come in sizes as big as
18/10 :O
Now that is sweet unfortunately they only come in white or gold
[means after
a road event you will b scrubbing them clean :( ]
The
reason above is why that rear bar was a custom piece, an old friend
made
for me. He owed a big favor so I had him pay me back with that...
he vowed
that if I ever asked him to make another (single piece not group
run) he
would beat me to death with it.
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Darren Schilberg [SMTP:dschilberg@pobox.com]
>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 5:05 PM
> To: 'Team 3S'
> Subject:
RE: Team3S: Rear Strut Tower Bar
>
> Well I just don't want people
to see the archives and think it is okay
> to do that so I had to throw up
my arms and complain.
>
> And I remember watching Mr. Wizard when
he hung a 5# weight from a bar
> (solid)5 feet long suspended at its ends
and then a 5# weight from a
> pipe (hollow). The bar bent in half
and fell off the table but the pipe
> was more rigid.
>
> I
can't help but think this is the same that a solid strut tower bar
> will
have vs. a hollow style. I don't know about them since I have not
>
installed them but I just wanted to bring that up.
>
> Thanks for
describing the wheels too. Those sound like a dream for us
>
racers.
>
> --Flash!
> 1995 VR-4
>
www.speedtoys.com/~dschilberg>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Furman, Russell
> Sent:
Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:23 PM
>
> Darren, I agree about
using a sturdy wheel on a road course.... that is
> why
> they
caught my attention they are cold spun forged aluminum [not tin
> foil
;)
> ] as for bending like a straw the rear bar was a solid
piece alloy
> pipe
> not a cusco bar.... I had thought about that
ahead of time,
> unfortunately I
> never got around to having it
teched or racing with it. On the street I
> felt no difference as
far stiffness went. What made a huge difference
> with
> the
top off on the MKIV was A DO-LUCK floor brace got rid of that mid
>
frame
> twist that I felt going over speed bumps ect... at an
angle.
>
> I must apologize when I send in some of my responses I
do not clearly
> explain myself. I am one off those people that believes
in brevity of
> speech, but I am learning to be more detailed when
replying to this
> list.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:52:59
-0400
From: Ken Stanton <
tt007ken@yahoo.com>
Subject: Team3S:
Lightweight Flywheels - Pros/Cons
Well, the tranny is out and is off to
get rebuilt, it is time to deal
with an important issue - rotational
inertia.
I had a Bozzspeed Chromalloy Flywheel on my car, which
self-destructed
and whatnot, but we won't go into that. I'm looking to
replace it, and
here are the issues concerning a lightweight flywheel -
please give your
feedback/thoughts! Thanks! BTW, I am considering
going back to the
stock.. but read on.
Pros:
Better response -
mainly mid/high-end
Faster acceleration - less mass = easier for engine to
spin
Less vehicle mass - 11 pound savings for the TT
On certain ones -
face is replaceable for <$100
Better heat dissipation - aluminum wheels
will keep cooler, improving
clutch grip
Cons:
Low-rpm stall - it is
much easier to stall from a start
Chatter - there are lots of complaints of
this
Fuel economy loss - this is a claim I've seen a few times, it
makes
sense to me (?)
Expensive - $400+
Vibrations - at low rpm, may
people claim they vibrate. I never go
slow, so I don't know
This
is my list so far, please add yours, or comments!
And, I've only heard of
2 wheels being used on our cars - Bozzspeed and
Fidenza. Anyone have
experience with Mueller, Tilton, or others?
Thanks!
Ken
Stanton
'91 Pearl White R/T TT
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:27:45
-0700 (PDT)
From: Geoff Mohler <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Lightweight Flywheels - Pros/Cons
*not an
advertisment*
Ive used the Mueller alum. flywheels with great
luck.
Its an alum flywheel with a replacable carbon-steel friction
surface.
Porterfield sells these.
I also personally have for sale a
dual-plate Tilton Aluminum flywheel
W/'alum pressure plate. The entire
assemply incl. discs weighs 13lbs.
(Paid $1600, has never been used or
installed)
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Ken Stanton wrote:
> Well, the
tranny is out and is off to get rebuilt, it is time to deal
> with an
important issue - rotational inertia.
>
> I had a Bozzspeed
Chromalloy Flywheel on my car, which self-destructed
> and whatnot, but we
won't go into that. I'm looking to replace it, and
> here are the
issues concerning a lightweight flywheel - please give your
>
feedback/thoughts! Thanks! BTW, I am considering going back to
the
> stock.. but read on.
>
> Pros:
> Better response
- mainly mid/high-end
> Faster acceleration - less mass = easier for
engine to spin
> Less vehicle mass - 11 pound savings for the TT
>
On certain ones - face is replaceable for <$100
> Better heat
dissipation - aluminum wheels will keep cooler, improving
> clutch
grip
>
> Cons:
> Low-rpm stall - it is much easier to stall
from a start
> Chatter - there are lots of complaints of this
> Fuel
economy loss - this is a claim I've seen a few times, it makes
> sense to
me (?)
> Expensive - $400+
> Vibrations - at low rpm, may people
claim they vibrate. I never go
> slow, so I don't know
>
> This is my list so far, please add yours, or comments!
>
>
And, I've only heard of 2 wheels being used on our cars - Bozzspeed and
>
Fidenza. Anyone have experience with Mueller, Tilton, or others?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ken Stanton
> '91 Pearl White R/T
TT
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
End of Team3S: 3000GT &
Stealth V1
#634
***************************************