Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth   Monday, December 17 2001   Volume 01 : Number 702




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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:58:07 -0600
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Is HKS no good?

> I forgot that they make the VPC. But it has a
> limited adjustability and people still have to buy
> Apexi S-AFC to make it work properly. But as I
> wrote  yesterday, if you have an AFC, you could
> become a little creative, save $1000+ and run your
> favorite 720 cc injectors with a stock MAS.

Your idea is yet to be proven.  I personally don't think that its going to
be consistent enough to make good solid reliable power.  Good luck on the
idea though, I'm sure there are several people here interested in hearing
how it works out.

I'm curious about where you are going to put all the extra intake piping.

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 23:25:36 -0600
From: "Philip V. Glazatov" <gphilip@umich.edu>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Is HKS no good?

The MAS bypass idea has been tried already and it works. I read about it
somewhere, but it was on a DSM or something. I did not just make it up
yesterday ;-)

If you need more space in the underhood compartment, you could move the
battery to the trunk and you will have enough space to install two more
turbos or two more K&N's. I might try it myself some day but I do not have
to since I will be installing 550 cc injectors, at least for now.

Philip

At 09:58 PM 12/16/01, Jannusch, Matt wrote:
> > I forgot that they make the VPC. But it has a
> > limited adjustability and people still have to buy
> > Apexi S-AFC to make it work properly. But as I
> > wrote  yesterday, if you have an AFC, you could
> > become a little creative, save $1000+ and run your
> > favorite 720 cc injectors with a stock MAS.
>
>Your idea is yet to be proven.  I personally don't think that its going to
>be consistent enough to make good solid reliable power.  Good luck on the
>idea though, I'm sure there are several people here interested in hearing
>how it works out.
>
>I'm curious about where you are going to put all the extra intake piping.
>
>-Matt
>'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:59:41 -0600
From: "Philip V. Glazatov" <gphilip@umich.edu>
Subject: Team3S: BOV open types vs Greddy Type-S

Could anyone educate me please, do I have to use Greddy Type-S if I am
planning to keep the stock MAS?

If I use a open-atmosphere valve, then already counted by MAS air will
escape and the ECU will get confused, richen the mixture the engine will
run rich for a while. I heard Apexi Super-AFC is supposed to correct this,
but I read on their website that they make this correction only for "hot
wire" meters and not for our Karmann's. So, does it mean that Greddy Type-S
and maybe some other recirculating BOV's are only ones I could use?

Not that I do not like Greddy Type-S, but I think that there could be some
other nice BOV's out there. I just want to keep my options open. Thanks.

Philip

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 06:59:58 +0100
From: "Chip @PDN" <c.greenberg@pdn-inc.com>
Subject: Team3S: fuel filter

How often is it called for to change the fuel filter?  The dealer tells me
every 15k miles.  That seems a bit often too me.
Thx
Chip

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 06:54:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Lucius <stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Is HKS no good?

MAS bypass:
For our cars, installing the stock MAS on the intake hose to one
turbo (and just having a filter on the intake hose to the other
turbo), does not solve the *essential* problem of using larger
injectors with the *stock* ECM. Larger injectors are basically only
needed when larger turbos are used and boost is increased to well
beyond factory design limits. The problem is that the ECM cannot
provide fuel in the proper amount needed to minimize knock at extreme
boost levels. Even using WI and high-octane fuel, richer A/F ratios
are required at 18-22+ boost levels - where 550-720 injectors are
required.

The "MAS bypass" would require 720 injectors to work, but the ECM
would always think only 1/2 the air is flowing than actually is. It
will not adjust the A/F correctly (nor the timing for that matter)
for the high boost levels - the ECM wuld think the engine is under
light load. The ARC2 and VPC (with accessories if desired) allow us
to richen the A/F to help quell knock at high boost. Timing cannot be
changed though (timing increased as a result of the ARC2 or VPC
reducing the air flow signal).

Moving battery:
Contrary to Philip's wistful statement below, moving the battery out
of its stock location (to anywhere else) does allow space for ANY
additional turbos or two more K&Ns. It would leave a nice space for
WI equipment.

Injector installation:
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/nlucius/n-2-injectors.htm

Jeff Lucius, www.stealth316.com

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip V. Glazatov" <gphilip@umich.edu>
To: <Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 10:25 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Is HKS no good?

The MAS bypass idea has been tried already and it works. I read about
it somewhere, but it was on a DSM or something. I did not just make
it up yesterday ;-)

If you need more space in the underhood compartment, you could move
the battery to the trunk and you will have enough space to install
two more turbos or two more K&N's. I might try it myself some day but
I do not have to since I will be installing 550 cc injectors, at
least for now.

Philip

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:32:21 -0600
From: David Allison <daedel@mac.com>
Subject: Team3S: Torndado fuel saver

I happened to catch the infomercial on this thing a minute ago and it
looks at least interesting. I've read some reviews and  this thing
supposedly works really well on  high performance engines. Just
wondering if anyone with a 3S has tried one? The guy in the commercial
had a K&N FIPK installed when he put his in and went from 200 HP to
~220. I'd like this thing as a stocking stuffer, so get back soon ;)

- -David
94 3000gt

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:53:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Geoff Mohler <gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Torndado fuel saver

Snake oil.

Sued multiple times by the FTC already.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, David Allison wrote:

> I happened to catch the infomercial on this thing a minute ago and it
> looks at least interesting. I've read some reviews and  this thing
> supposedly works really well on  high performance engines. Just
> wondering if anyone with a 3S has tried one? The guy in the commercial
> had a K&N FIPK installed when he put his in and went from 200 HP to
> ~220. I'd like this thing as a stocking stuffer, so get back soon ;)
>
> -David
> 94 3000gt

- ---
Geoff Mohler

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:29:50 -0600
From: Drew Mouton <drew@irev2.com>
Subject: Team3S: Want to pass on some wheels?

Hey All,
I need to buy some replacement street wheels (and tires) for my '92
3000base. The stock 16s have just been waiting for me to get around to a
size upgrade.

Is anyone sitting on a decent used set of 17s or 18s they'd like to part
with?

Cheers,

Drew Mouton

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 19:54:40 +0100
From: "Roger Gerl \(RTEC\)" <roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: fuel filter

Each 60k service is enough.

Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch

> How often is it called for to change the fuel filter?  The dealer tells me
> every 15k miles.  That seems a bit often too me.
> Thx
> Chip

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:01:18 -0600
From: "Alex Pedenko" <apedenko@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Wheels/Tires

    The 18 x 10 was more or less random - I don't know much about sizes past
xxx/xx  sizing, so I think I'm gonna try 'n go w/ the P zeros (I've drooled
over those before :)

    How do they handle in the snow? I don't mean knee deep snow, but just
wet, slushy weather in general.

    Also, what's a good price for those and what's a good price for Volk GTP
18 X 9 wheels? The guy at wheel options offered 490 per.

    thanks,

        Alex.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Lucius" <stealthman92@yahoo.com>
To: "Alex Pedenko" <apedenko@attbi.com>; "'Team3S'" <team3s@team3s.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Team3S: Wheels/Tires

> --- Alex Pedenko <apedenko@attbi.com> wrote:
> > I went to www.wheeloptions.com and hat them price out a package for
> > me -
> >
> > 2700 for the package
> > 4x Volk GTPs 18X10 @ $490 ea
> > 4x Michelin MXM Pilot 255/35? ZR18 @185 ea
>
> 10" wide wheels:
> I have 18x9 wheels with 38 mm offset on my '92 Stealth TT. The wheel
> itself extends maybe 3/8" past the outer edge of the front fender
> (still tucked in a little in back). The 265/35 tire extends out
> another 1/8". Your 18x10" wheel will protrude an additional 1". Not
> 1/2" because you will have to keep the inner edge of the wheel about
> in the same relative position as mine, which leaves about 1/4" of
> clearance with the tire I have mounted and suspension and body parts.
>
> Are you sure you want the look of tire/wheel sticking out 1.5" past
> the front fender? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just
> being sure that is what you want.
>
> Offset:
> The stock offset is 46 mm with 8.5 inch wheels. To keep exactly the
> same clearance between wheel/tire as the stock setup, your 10" wheel
> will have to have an offset 0.75" less (19 mm less) than 46 mm or
> about 27 mm. Look at your current clearance at various positions of
> the wheel/tire. If you can stand to have less clearance then you can
> add that amount back into the the offset. So if say you could stand
> to move the wheel/tire 1/4" (6.35 mm) closer to the strut, then
> offset could be increased to 33-34 mm (for 10" wheels).
>
> Tires:
> Why would you mount a 255-mm (10") wide tire on a 10" wheel? The 255
> easily mounts on 8.5-9" wheels. Remember, the overall width of the
> tire is wider than the mounting width. The 265/35 Pirellis mount
> nicely on my 18x9 SSR GT1s. A 275 tire is more suitable for a 10"
> wheel. Maybe 18x8.5 or 18x9 wheels might suite your goals better than
> 18x10 wheels. Just a suggestion. :)
>
> SSR GT1 wheels:
> http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/nlucius/n-2-ssr-gt1.htm
>
> Pirelli P Zero Rosso tires:
> http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/nlucius/n-2-pirelli-pzra.htm
>
> Jeff Lucius, www.stealth316.com

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:19:21 -0800
From: "Geddes, Brian J" <brian.j.geddes@intel.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Idea for cheaper way to run 720CC injectors?

Perhaps if you bought a used MAS from a junk yard and hooked it up to the
other intake pipe.  You wouldn't plug the second MAS in, but it would give
you identical restrictions on both pipes. :)

- - Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip V. Glazatov [mailto:gphilip@umich.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 9:52 AM
> To: Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st
> Subject: Re: Team3S: Idea for cheaper way to run 720CC injectors?
>
>
> One more reason to do a bypass instead of installing MAS on just one
> intake: Two turbos do not always spin at the same speed. If
> you install
> your MAS on just one turbo, then that turbo might not always
> spin at the
> same speed as the other one. Therefore you will not be
> getting total air
> flow proportional to the MAS sensor reading.
>
> Philip
>
> At 12:58 AM 12/15/01, Philip V. Glazatov wrote:
> >I would use one large air filter. The reason is that if one
> filter gets
> >dirtier than the other, or if you oil one K&N more than the
> other, or if
> >you swap the filters accidentally during teardown, etc...
> you will have to
> >tune your air/fuel ratio all over again.
> >
> >Philip
> >
> >At 11:05 PM 12/14/01, John Monnin wrote:
> >>What if you only hooked the stock MAF sensor the to ONE of
> the intake
> >>pipes.  The other intake pipe would be connected to a
> separate air filter.

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:46:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Lucius <stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Idea for cheaper way to run 720CC injectors?

Uneven turbo speed:
Turbine speed is basically determined by the exhaust gas flow -
assuming identical turbo and compressor sections. The turbo
compressor section creates the low pressure zone that sucks air in
through the air filter. Remember, there is high pressure after the
turbo and air flows from high to low pressure. The low pressure after
the turbo being the cylinders with pistons going downward. Having
different *minor* restrictions in front of the turbo probably won't
make too much difference. At least nothing measurable to worry about.
The turbo is not going to care.

I posted this below in another thread but it should probably go in
this one.

MAS bypass:
For our cars, installing the stock MAS on the intake hose to one
turbo (and just having a filter on the intake hose to the other
turbo), does not solve the *essential* problem of using larger
injectors with the *stock* ECM. Larger injectors are basically only
needed when larger turbos are used and boost is increased to well
beyond factory design limits. The problem is that the ECM cannot
provide fuel in the proper amount needed to minimize knock at extreme
boost levels. Even using WI and high-octane fuel, richer A/F ratios
are required at 18-22+ boost levels - where 550-720 injectors are
required.

The "MAS bypass" would require 720 injectors to work, but the ECM
would always think only 1/2 the air is flowing than actually is. It
will not adjust the A/F correctly (nor the timing for that matter)
for the high boost levels - the ECM would think the engine is under
light load. The ARC2 and VPC (with accessories if desired) allow us
to richen the A/F to help quell knock at high boost. Timing cannot be
changed though (timing increased as a result of the ARC2 or VPC
reducing the air flow signal).

Jeff Lucius, www.stealth316.com

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Geddes, Brian J" <brian.j.geddes@intel.com>
To: "'Philip V. Glazatov'" <gphilip@umich.edu>;
<Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Idea for cheaper way to run 720CC injectors?

Perhaps if you bought a used MAS from a junk yard and hooked it up to
the other intake pipe.  You wouldn't plug the second MAS in, but it
would give you identical restrictions on both pipes. :)

- - Brian

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:15:47 -0800
From: "Gross, Erik" <erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Idea for cheaper way to run 720CC injectors?

> The "MAS bypass" would require 720 injectors to work,
> but the ECM would always think only 1/2 the air is flowing
> than actually is. It will not adjust the A/F correctly (nor
> the timing for that matter) for the high boost levels -
> the ECM would think the engine is under light load.

So Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, but based on your comments about modifying
the airflow signal in our cars, I come to the following conclusions:

1) This would apply to any modifications done so that the airflow
signal is modified (specifically: lowered) - meaning VPC, MAS bypass, ARC2,
etc.

2) The ECU would NOT provide extra fuel to prevent knock at high boost.
This could be countered by using an aftermarket air/fuel controller, but
would require a lot of time tuning all the details.

3) The ECU would NOT preemptively retard the timing at high boost to
prevent knock.  Maybe an aftermarket timing controller would help?

4) The ECU WOULD retard timing if excessive knock were detected.  But
at extreme power levels, it only takes a little knock to break stuff
quickly, right?

5) The ECU's fuel cut operation would not protect the engine in the
case of running extremely lean or running with extremely high boost (i.e.
oops, forgot to connect the wastegate actuator line).

6) Essentially, if you plan to add higher-flowing injectors and thus
bypass the ECU's engine safety mechanisms, you'd better be extra sure you
know what you're doing and have gauges everywhere in the cockpit to monitor
all the things that the ECU normally protects you from.

That sound about right?  Man... maybe I *will* pull the
15Gs/550s/VPC off my wish list for a reliable road-race/road-trip car.  I
like the idea of running 15-16psi to redline, but if that means one failed
part results in an engine rebuild rather than "fuel cut, pull over, fix
problem, resume driving,"  I'm not so sure. 
Theoretically, I should be happy with 350-400hp for a road-race
car....    but there was a time not too long ago where I tried to convince
myself that I'd be happy with my old NA 3000GT, too.   We all know how that
ended up =)  @#$%$@#%@#$ feature creep....

- --Erik
'95 VR-4 with stock airflow signal

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:30:47 -0600
From: "Jannusch, Matt" <mjannusch@marketwatch.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Idea for cheaper way to run 720CC injectors?

> 1) This would apply to any modifications done so that the airflow
> signal is modified (specifically: lowered) - meaning VPC, MAS
> bypass, ARC2, etc.

Yes.

> 2) The ECU would NOT provide extra fuel to prevent knock
> at high boost.  This could be countered by using an
> aftermarket air/fuel controller, but would require a lot
> of time tuning all the details.

It actually should provide extra fuel when on boost, but the response curve
probably won't be optimum.

> 3) The ECU would NOT preemptively retard the timing at
> high boost to prevent knock.  Maybe an aftermarket
> timing controller would help?

It should* seek out maximum advance whenever possible and then back off when
it sees knock - to a point.  What would really be great would be an
aftermarket fuel and timing controller in one box, that could adjust fuel in
different tables for RPM, throttle position, and boost level.  Then have the
same sort of tables for timing control.  Then also have datalogging for us
poor guys caught in the middle of the OBD standards.  Gee, kinda like...
Oh, say...  An EFI Systems PMS controller.  8-)

> 4) The ECU WOULD retard timing if excessive knock were
> detected.  But
> at extreme power levels, it only takes a little knock to
> break stuff quickly, right?

Pretty much - yes.

> 5) The ECU's fuel cut operation would not protect the engine in the
> case of running extremely lean or running with extremely high
> boost (i.e. oops, forgot to connect the wastegate actuator line).

Fuel cut can still happen, but it'll probably be too late if it ever comes
along to save your pistons.

> 6) Essentially, if you plan to add higher-flowing
> injectors and thus
> bypass the ECU's engine safety mechanisms, you'd better be
> extra sure you know what you're doing and have gauges
> everywhere in the cockpit to monitor all the things that the
> ECU normally protects you from.

Yup.  I learned that the hard way.

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:37:58 -0500
From: "bdtrent" <bdtrent@netzero.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Idea for cheaper way to run 720CC injectors?

From the school of keeping it simple, I've had good luck for the last 3 yrs.
and 4 open track events with the following setup:
13g's
AVC-R set to 18psi
AFC
RC 500's
Denso 260lph pump
EGT
Boost gage
FIPK
ATR down pipe (questionable benefit)
Cat free stock exhaust
Stock bypass valve

This system will hold boost at ~16psi in 2nd, 17psi in 3rd, and 18psi in
4-5th
If I were doing it again, I would switch to RC 550's as the 500's are
pushing at high rpm.  Otherwise, this is a bare bones system that works.
Tuning took about 5 minutes.  I was running 18psi at my last open track
event but the water temp was normal and the EGT's were peaking around 870C
down the front straight.  I havn't got a datalogger yet, but that will
hopefully change by the end of next week.

Regards,
DaveT/92TT

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:03:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Lucius <stealthman92@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Idea for cheaper way to run 720CC injectors?

Erik,

That is a nice synopsis. I would add the following comments.

1. Yes. The VPC, ARC2, AFC, and similar devices are properly called
air-flow signal conditioners (AFSC). When using the *stock* ECM, the
air flow signal must be reduced to compensate for the higher
"flow-per-squirt" of larger-than-stock injectors.

2. True and not true. The ECM will do two things that I have observed
using the datalogger when it sees high knock counts (lots of
detonation). It will retard timing and it will dump fuel - regardless
of whether an AFSC is installed. I understand that in extreme case it
will also revert to a failsafe ("low octane") timing and fuel map.

3. True. The ECM will naturally retard timing (actually reduce the
timing advance) as it sees higher and higher air flow at a given RPM.
This still happens with AFSCs just not to the extent it does without
AFSCs. See my web pages below.

http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius2/j2-2-tmo2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/lutransys/jlucius/2-tmo1.htm

4. I have datalogged 20+ knock counts many times - especially when my
CAS was not set correctly (way too much basic timing). Nothing has
broken yet. Maybe the forged pistons and moly rings helped. On the
other hand, wear may have increased drastically on rod and main
bearings. So will a *little* knock break things quickly? Probably
not. Will lots of knock do it? Maybe, depends. Will any knock have
detrimental impact on engine longevity? Almost certainly.

5. Not exactly. Fuel cut is initiated by the ECM: 1) when too much
air flows at some RPM (too much boost), 2) when the engine revs too
high (~7500 RPM), and 3) during strong deceleration (throttle plate
closed). There are no safety features in the ECM that I know of for
"running lean" in open-loop mode (WOT) because the ECM does not
monitor and use the O2 reading in open-loop mode. Situation 1) is
greatly reduced or eliminated using AFSCs with larger injectors.

6. Exactly in my opinion. Two EGT, two A/F, a real boost gauge, and a
fuel pressure gauge would be the minimum. Also beneficial would be
real coolant temp (though us with datloggers can scale the stock
gauge), and real oil pressure and oil temp. Plus anything else that
helps you monitor the engine. Always a datalogger if applicable.

Don't pull the 15Gs/550s/VPC off your wish list. Many, many owners
run this or similar equipment without problems. Believe me (and
others) when we say the reward is worth the expense and higher
probability for pain.

For a strictly road race car you might consider DR500/13G turbos, 450
cc/min injectors, and Apex'i S-AFC - along with any appropriate
warning/tuning devices/meters/etc. 13G turbos will supply 690 cfm of
air over a broad range of RPM. That is good for a real, non-stressed
400 bhp. That 10:1 weight:power ratio with upgraded suspension and
braking may be all you need. But best to ask the successful road
racers in the group about this.

Good luck,

Jeff Lucius, www.stealth316.com

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gross, Erik" <erik.gross@intel.com>
To: <Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:15 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Idea for cheaper way to run 720CC injectors?

> The "MAS bypass" would require 720 injectors to work,
> but the ECM would always think only 1/2 the air is flowing
> than actually is. It will not adjust the A/F correctly (nor
> the timing for that matter) for the high boost levels -
> the ECM would think the engine is under light load.

So Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, but based on your comments about
modifying
the airflow signal in our cars, I come to the following conclusions:

1) This would apply to any modifications done so that the airflow
signal is modified (specifically: lowered) - meaning VPC, MAS bypass,
ARC2, etc.

2) The ECU would NOT provide extra fuel to prevent knock at high
boost. This could be countered by using an aftermarket air/fuel
controller, but would require a lot of time tuning all the details.

3) The ECU would NOT preemptively retard the timing at high boost to
prevent knock.  Maybe an aftermarket timing controller would help?

4) The ECU WOULD retard timing if excessive knock were detected.  But
at extreme power levels, it only takes a little knock to break stuff
quickly, right?

5) The ECU's fuel cut operation would not protect the engine in the
case of running extremely lean or running with extremely high boost
(i.e. oops, forgot to connect the wastegate actuator line).

6) Essentially, if you plan to add higher-flowing injectors and thus
bypass the ECU's engine safety mechanisms, you'd better be extra sure
you know what you're doing and have gauges everywhere in the cockpit
to monitor all the things that the ECU normally protects you from.

That sound about right?  Man... maybe I *will* pull the 15Gs/550s/VPC
off my wish list for a reliable road-race/road-trip car.  I like the
idea of running 15-16psi to redline, but if that means one failed
part results in an engine rebuild rather than "fuel cut, pull over,
fix problem, resume driving,"  I'm not so sure. 
Theoretically, I should be happy with 350-400hp for a road-race
car....    but there was a time not too long ago where I tried to
convince myself that I'd be happy with my old NA 3000GT, too.   We
all know how that ended up =)  @#$%$@#%@#$ feature creep....

- --Erik
'95 VR-4 with stock airflow signal

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:33:15 -0500
From: Michael Reid <mreid@magma.ca>
Subject: Team3S: Re: Labor charges for water pump

At 07:33 PM 12/15/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>water pump kit:                     $125
>belt, valve timing                    $151
>Adjuster, timing belt tension:   $ 97  (it is hydraulic)
>coolent/flush:                          $17
>labor:                                     $420

Seems like decent prices for a dealer. Tallahassee
Mitsubishi ( http://www.worldparts.com/tallmits/ )
discounts these prices by about 35% if you have
somewhere that accepts "outside parts".

Dodge dealers, and ones here in Canada particularly,
seem to charge more, sometimes a lot more.

One satan dealer quoted me about $50 US ($75 Canadian)
per spark plug ! The lowest of 3 quotes was $25 US;
I got them for $10 from Tallahassee.

My 60K was done by a non-dealer shop and cost about
$1300 US, but only because I replaced virtually EVERYTHING
the 60K makes easier, such as waterpump, crank and cam seals,
gaskets, thermostat, rad hoses, spark plug cables etc.

Mike.
94 TT.

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:45:29 -0800
From: "Gross, Erik" <erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: Team3S: EGT Gauge Installation

For those who've done it... 

Can you install the thermocouple (sensor) in the collector of the exhaust
manifold WITHOUT removing the turbo? - or the engine, duh :-)  I can see a
possibility on the front bank, but the rear looks to be difficult at best.

I'm not too keen on drilling/tapping the hole in the manifold while it's on
the car since I imagine metal shavings and turbine blades don't get along
really well.  I want an EGT gauge (actually 2), but I don't think I'm
motivated to unbolt exhaust/oil-lines/coolant-lines/turbos at this point. 

And then there's the "if the turbos are already off, why put the same ones
back on?" factor.  No budget for bigger turbos and the prerequisite fuel/air
modifications....  yet =D

- --Erik
'95 VR-4

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:58:28 -0500
From: Michael Reid <mreid@magma.ca>
Subject: Team3S: Re: Is HKS no good?

At 07:33 PM 12/15/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>my head and I came to a conclusion that HKS is a company that I should stay
>away from or be very careful with. Here is why:

HKS did have a reputation for being accurate in their HP tests.
I never have figured out though, if the 37 HP increase for 91-93 TT's
and VR-4's with HKS air filter and exhaust applies to a 94 also.

320hp + 37hp = 357hp ??? Or less or more ?

My HKS anecdote:

In 1994 (I suspect) the original owner of my 94 TT had installed an
HKS Super MegaFlow (or whatever, the dual green filter in a "T" shape)
air filter, and the regular HKS catback exhaust.

In 1998, all four of the chrome exhaust tips came off, due to rusting
of the perforated metal that holds them to the pipe. I'm not sure I
can excuse this on such an expensive exhaust, even if I DO drive in
Canadian winters on salted roads. I only drive about 6000 miles/year
and the car is garaged.

The exhaust now seems louder than when original and a strip of metal
is coming off of the main muffler. I don't know if that's to be
expected at 7-8 years of age, but with a stock or normal exhaust,
perhaps it is.

I've heard the air filter story about HKS before but don't know what
to think. Even K&N has a few I think. K&N seems to be the most
popular on 3000GT/Stealth's though, especially with the cheaper DSM filter.

I HATE that HKS says I must replace the filter every 10,000 miles.
I expect to replace the whole thing with a K&N for this reason
and because I hate how the forward filter element is jammed against
the relay box. I broke an HKS filter plastic piece partly because
of this and suspect I can't order that one part.

Mike.
94 TT w/ no HKS exhaust tips.

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 20:59:20 -0700
From: Wayne <whietala@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Torndado fuel saver

I've tested these on several different vehicles on a dyno......they are
worthless.

W

At 09:32 AM 12/17/01 , David Allison wrote:
>I happened to catch the infomercial on this thing a minute ago and it
>looks at least interesting. I've read some reviews and  this thing
>supposedly works really well on  high performance engines. Just wondering
>if anyone with a 3S has tried one? The guy in the commercial had a K&N
>FIPK installed when he put his in and went from 200 HP to ~220. I'd like
>this thing as a stocking stuffer, so get back soon ;)
>
>-David
>94 3000gt

***  Info:  http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm  ***

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

End of Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth V1 #702
***************************************