Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth Wednesday, April 10
2002 Volume 01 : Number
807
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 02:27:13 -0400
From: "Philip V. Glazatov" <
gphilip@umich.edu>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Purpose of Fuel Pressure Regulator
The more accurate, the more
technical... Let's confuse everyone so that
they just quit this list at
once. Hey, I am just happy I understood the
idea without reading it
twice.
Hmm... 58 psi of fuel pressure. Why are we then testing fuel pumps
at 43?
It should be 58 or even 73 psi.
Philip
At 11:52 PM
4/8/2002, Geoff Mohler wrote:
>The more accurate way of saying the same
thing is the static pressure is
>43psi, and it rises and falls with
boost/vacum.
>
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, fastmax wrote:
>
>
> The fuel pressure is kept at 43# above boost pressure --- at 15 pounds
of
> > boost the fuel pressure is 43+15 or 58 psi.
> >
>
> in order to get the proper flow rate the injectors need 43 PSI of
pressure
> > across the injector so if the intake plenum pressure
increases [ boost
> mode ]
> > the fuel pressure needs to
increase by the same amount.
> >
>
> Jim berry
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 02:32:26
-0400
From: "Bill vp" <
billvp@highstream.net>
Subject:
Team3S: RE: vpc/safc settings with 550s, 15G's
Nobody has knowledge of
whether or not my car has to run richer than most in
the middle-high rpms
with the vpc/safc setup? I'm not asking for any
"secret" settings --
just whether these look "richer" than they should have
to be (to eliminate
knock).
thanks,
Bill
- -----Original Message-----
From: Bill
vp [mailto:billvp@highstream.net]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:00 PM
To:
team3/S
Subject: vpc/safc settings with 550s, 15G's
Does anyone have
their base settings that I could use as a comparison to
mine?
In order
to reduce knock (at 12 psi) to acceptable levels (below 10
sustained), I have
the following settings (old style SAFC)
VPC:
gain = -8 (dial setting,
not turns)
SAFC
800 = -22
2400 = -16
4000 = -8
5600 =
-6
7200 = -14
If anyone else would PLEASE comment on these settings,
as to whether they
are more rich than normal, or normal, I would greatly
appreciate it. Even
if you have the new style SAFC, please tell me your
settings. I need to
know if this is normal, or if I am having to run
super-rich because of
knock. On the pocketlogger I get 0.98v (sometimes
1.0v) with this setup at
WOT.
thanks,
Bill
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 23:46:58
-0700 (PDT)
From: Geoff Mohler <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Purpose of Fuel Pressure Regulator
Exactly..why?
I
always get a huge laugh out of people who think that 50-60psi static
pressure
is "good"..and then they add a ton of boost on it without
thinking it through
properly.
The real hoots are the people who invest in 2:1 or larger
regulators..then
you have to consider what 20-50 extra psi flows
like.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Philip V. Glazatov wrote:
> The more
accurate, the more technical... Let's confuse everyone so that
> they
just quit this list at once. Hey, I am just happy I understood the
> idea
without reading it twice.
>
> Hmm... 58 psi of fuel pressure. Why
are we then testing fuel pumps at 43?
> It should be 58 or even 73
psi.
>
> Philip
>
> At 11:52 PM 4/8/2002, Geoff Mohler
wrote:
> >The more accurate way of saying the same thing is the static
pressure is
> >43psi, and it rises and falls with boost/vacum.
>
>
> >On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, fastmax wrote:
> >
> >
> The fuel pressure is kept at 43# above boost pressure --- at 15 pounds
of
> > > boost the fuel pressure is 43+15 or 58 psi.
> >
>
> > > in order to get the proper flow rate the injectors need
43 PSI of pressure
> > > across the injector so if the intake plenum
pressure increases [ boost
> > mode ]
> > > the fuel
pressure needs to increase by the same amount.
> > >
> >
> Jim berry
-
---
Geoff Mohler
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:11:10
-0700
From: "fastmax" <
fastmax@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Purpose of Fuel Pressure Regulator
I think Philip's thoughts were ----
why look at pump flow rates at 43 psi when
the pump really needs to provide
consistent fuel flow to the injectors under
worst case
conditions which might be as high as 70+ psi. When buying a
pump you need to
know the volume at 70psi not just 43 ---- the manufacturer
should provide a
chart. I think it's HKS that advertises one of it high flow
pumps as going
to 165 psi, my guess is that at that pressure the flow is down
to a trickle
and is therefore useless.
Jim
Berry
====================================================
- -----
Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Mohler" <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
>
Exactly..why?
>
> I always get a huge laugh out of people who think
that 50-60psi static
> pressure is "good"..and then they add a ton of
boost on it without
> thinking it through properly.
>
> The
real hoots are the people who invest in 2:1 or larger regulators..then
>
you have to consider what 20-50 extra psi flows like.
>
> On Tue, 9
Apr 2002, Philip V. Glazatov wrote:
>
> > The more accurate, the
more technical... Let's confuse everyone so that
> > they just quit
this list at once. Hey, I am just happy I understood the
> > idea
without reading it twice.
> >
> > Hmm... 58 psi of fuel
pressure. Why are we then testing fuel pumps at 43?
> > It should be
58 or even 73 psi.
> >
> > Philip
***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:24:13
+0200
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Purpose of Fuel Pressure Regulator
At 07:11 09.04.2002 -0700,
fastmax wrote:
>I think Philip's thoughts were ---- why look at pump flow
rates at 43 psi when
>the pump really needs to provide consistent fuel
flow to the injectors under
>worst case conditions which might
be as high as 70+ psi. When buying a
>pump you need to know the volume at
70psi not just 43 ---- the manufacturer
>should provide a chart. I think
it's HKS that advertises one of it high flow
>pumps as going to 165 psi,
my guess is that at that pressure the flow is down
>to a trickle and is
therefore useless.
This all available, at least numbers (we all know
Excel). The pumps are
rated at 43 psi because this is what most NA use. It
became standard due to
this. Walboro, Bosch and some Denso data is available
in table form from
some sources.$
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:36:34
-0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Purpose of Fuel Pressure Regulator
- ----- Original Message
-----
From: "Philip V. Glazatov" <
gphilip@umich.edu>
Sent: Tuesday,
April 09, 2002 12:27 AM
>> Hmm... 58 psi of fuel pressure. Why are
we then
>> testing fuel pumps at 43? It should be 58 or even 73
psi.
Electric fuel pumps for our cars are tested at 58, 73, even 100+
psi. Only the
typical "rating" is at 43 psi and some voltage. Because the
fuel pump flows
less fuel at higher fuel line pressures but the engine needs
more fuel at
higher line (boost) pressures, it is critical that the fuel
pump be tested to
guaranty that it can flow what the engine needs. This is
why I and others have
made such a big deal out of the "HKS" "310 lph"
(Cosmo) pump being such a
farce (it is not as good as the Supra pump!).
Measured flow data are available on my web page below for many pumps
that can
be used in our cars. The stock 300ZX turbo pump is not listed yet
but it also
flows the same as the Supra turbo pump.
http://www.stealth316.com/2-fuelpumpguide.htm-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Chapleski" <
michael.chapleski@verizon.net>
Sent:
Monday, April 08, 2002 8:33 PM
>> I see in the TIM manual that the
FPR maintains
>> 43 PSI. Is this true throughout the boost
range.
>> I would think not.
I think so (for differential
pressure that is)! A FPR is required for every
fuel injection engine so that
the pressure difference across the injector
remains constant for the ECM to
do its calculations and use its maps. The
rising rate FPR (those with a
greater than 1:1 line pressure increase with
manifold pressure increase) is
just a cheap way to dump extra fuel to reduce
knock in an engine with
added-on supercharging. There is no good reason to add
a RR-FPR on our turbo
models.
For turbo models only:
The factory FPR maintains about 43 psi
differential pressure across the fuel
injector by increasing fuel line
pressure to match the increase in boost
pressure. At idle, fuel line
pressure is about 34 psi. As manifold pressure
approaches atmospheric, the
FPR increases line pressure to about 43 psi. At 10
psi boost, for example,
line pressure increases to 53 psi to offset the extra
10 psi (boost)
pressing against the injector opening. A nominal 43 psi
pressure difference
is maintained across the injector and the injector flows
at a rate based on
43 psi line pressure, not 53 psi line pressure.
Jeff Lucius,
http://www.stealth316.com/***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 20:07:54
+0200
From: "Jim Matthews" <
jim@the-matthews.com>
Subject:
Team3S: RE: Conversion of '94 Stealth to UK spec
Thanks to Glynn Birds,
Simon Jones and various folks in the GTOUK Technical Forum
(
http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=308930&CategoryID=918&startcat=21&ThreadID=149140)
for
offering informative references and suggestions. I just whipped up
a quick web page
(
http://www.the-matthews.com/eurospec.html)
describing my progress so far (rear amber turn signals
are built!) and
soliciting input on some outstanding issues, including:
1) How can the
turn signals be isolated from the rear turn/brake circuit? For those with
stock
amber turn signals, what do your schematics look like?
2) Is
realignment of stock projector headlights acceptable for UK regs (SVA)?
For those with cars
registered in areas where driving is on the left side of
the road, are the projector headlight
modules different (i.e.- part
numbers)?
3) Is it possible to install a second fog light switch in the
dash knockout just beneath the stock
front fog light switch? It looks
like it's not really a knockout, rather a non-functional part of
the
switch.
Again, thanks for any help you can provide. I head to
England at the end of this month and have
until the end of next month to get
the car through SVA inspection.
- - --
Jim Matthews - Munich,
Germany
mailto:jim@the-matthews.com
(64 Kbps ISDN)
http://www.the-matthews.com***
3000GT-Stealth International (3Si) Member #0030
***
http://www.the-matthews.com/stealth.htmlJet
Black '94 Dodge Stealth R/T Twin-Turbo AWD AWS 6-spd
Adjustable Active
Suspension, Adjustable Exhaust System
K&N FIPK, A'PEXi Super AVC-R v.1
(1.0 bar @ 64% BADC)
A'PEXi Turbo Timer (30 sec), Blitz Super Blow-Off
Valve
Magnecore spark plug wires, Optima Red Top 830 Battery
Redline synth
fluids (trans= MT-90, xfer & diff= SPHvy)
Cryoed rotors, R4S pads,
braided lines, red calipers
Michelin Pilot XGT-Z4 245/45ZR17, Top Speed: 171
mph
G-Tech Pro: 0-60 4.79 sec, 1/4 13.16 sec @ 113.9 mph
1 Feb 99 Dyno
Session: 367 SAE HP, 354 lb-ft torque
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:43:48
-0400
From: "Zobel, Kurt" <
KURT.ZOBEL@ca.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Re: Evans coolant reply
Cavitation would likely result at double
speed.
Now we need a pummp engineer!
Kurt
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Furman, Russell [mailto:RFurman2@MassMutual.com]
Sent:
Monday, April 08, 2002 4:00 PM
To: 'fastmax'; xwing;
team3s@stealth-3000gt.stSubject:
RE: Team3S: Re: Evans coolant reply
Why not put a pulley on the pump that
would make it spin twice as fast?
Only negative is a shortened pump life and
we replace them every 60K anyway?
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: fastmax [SMTP:fastmax@cox.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 6:58
PM
> To: xwing;
team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Re: Evans coolant reply
>
> The following
paragraph is from a series of tech articles at the location
>
shown.
> The author says, without elaboration, that propylene glycol
should be
> pumped
> at twice the flow rate of ethelene glycol
mix.
>
> It would have been nice of Evens to say why we shouldn't
use their
> product.
>
=======================================================
>
http://www.grapeaperacing.com/GrapeApeRacing/tech/coolingmods.cfm>
> I'm sure that you've read or heard somewhere before that water is the
best
> coolant. This is true as far as being able to absorb heat
>
for a given flow rate, water does do that the best. Water also boils at
a
> lower temperature than other coolants and can develop
> steam
pockets easier, so it's not the best coolant in that respect. A
> water /
ethylene glycol mixture will boil at a higher temp and
> resist steam
pockets better than plain water, the down fall is that it has
> to have a
higher flow rate, but that is easy to
> accomplish. The 3rd common (and
least common) form of coolant is propylene
> glycol, which had the highest
boiling point and can run
> higher than 250° F (average temperature as
seen on a gauge) without
> forming steam pockets, but it must flow at more
than twice the
> speed of a water / ethylene glycol mixture (which means
major changes to
> most cooling systems).
>
> Jim
Berry
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:47:21
-0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Re: Evans coolant reply
Ok, two ?'s one what exactly is
cavitation? and two at what approximately
what percentage over standard
would the pump start to cavitate 1.25? 1.75?
Trying to think outside the box
while still being trapped inside another
(gotta love corporate
America.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zobel, Kurt
[SMTP:KURT.ZOBEL@ca.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 3:44 PM
>
To: Furman, Russell; 'fastmax'; xwing;
team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Re: Evans coolant reply
>
> Cavitation would
likely result at double speed.
> Now we need a pummp engineer!
>
> Kurt
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:56:02
-0700 (PDT)
From: Geoff Mohler <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Re: Evans coolant reply
Its when something like an impeller
or propeller spins so fast, that it
becomes inefficient. The low
pressure area behind the device causes
gasses dissolved in the fluid to
condnese out of it. This reduces pump
flow, and the severe popping of
the air bubbles and turbulence can pit
the impeller similar to
detonation on a piston.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Furman, Russell
wrote:
> Ok, two ?'s one what exactly is cavitation? and two at
what approximately
> what percentage over standard would the pump start to
cavitate 1.25? 1.75?
> Trying to think outside the box while still being
trapped inside another
> (gotta love corporate America.)
-
---
Geoff Mohler
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 12:59:38
-0700
From: Damon Rachell <
damonr@mefas.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Re: Evans coolant reply
cavitation is where disolved gases are forced out
of solution caused by
increased pressure of the fluid in which their
disolved. Props do this,
high speed pumps do this. Basically, if
you speed up a pump to
excessive speeds, then you will get cavitation.
when it happens depends
upon the solvent, the solute concentration, and the
solute itself. I
wouldnt' think, tough, that increasing the pump
velocity by 25% would
cause cavitation.
Hope this
helps.
Damon
Furman, Russell wrote:
> Ok, two ?'s one what
exactly is cavitation? and two at what approximately
> what
percentage over standard would the pump start to cavitate 1.25? 1.75?
>
Trying to think outside the box while still being trapped inside another
>
(gotta love corporate America.)
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:03:25
-0700 (PDT)
From: Geoff Mohler <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Re: Evans coolant reply
I always thought it was the
turbulence behind the prop that forms
cavitation.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002,
Damon Rachell wrote:
> cavitation is where disolved gases are forced
out of solution caused by
> increased pressure of the fluid in which
their disolved. Props do this,
> high speed pumps do this.
Basically, if you speed up a pump to
> excessive speeds, then you will
get cavitation. when it happens depends
> upon the solvent, the
solute concentration, and the solute itself. I
> wouldnt' think,
tough, that increasing the pump velocity by 25% would
> cause
cavitation.
>
> Hope this helps.
> Damon
-
---
Geoff Mohler
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:00:14
-0700
From: "Chris Winkley" <
Chris_Winkley@adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Launching
Brad...
There have been a number of
launching methods documented over the four
years Team3S has been in
existence. Much of the results are dependent on
the driver's skill. I suggest
you do a search in the archives and start
with a conservative approach then
work up to what gets you the results
you want.
Face the facts...drag
racing is hard on drivetrain components. I have
broken half a dozen cars over
the last twenty-five years of drag racing.
All of them have been repairable.
The only question is how much it
costs.
As for my VR4, I have tried
the 4K slip and WOT approach and found it to
be less than optimal. I have had
my best results with a 5500 to 6000
sidestep dump. I have 40K miles on a 2nd
gen and finally toasted my
stock clutch last summer after 30 or more 1/4 mile
runs during the
previous two years. My stock six speed transmission is as
smooth as any
VR4 I've ever driven. A little "notchy" in 2nd and 3rd when
it's cold,
then smooth. I use Redline synthetic fluids and Mobil One 15w -
50w in
the pan. If I speed shifted (no clutch) I'd be more concerned about
the
synchros, but I've never found (with other cars) that it made
a
significant difference in ETs.
I heard that Bob Forrest lost his RPS
carbon claw recently and he's been
active only on the open track (to my
knowledge). However, he lives in
the Bay area and probably has to slip his
clutch more than most of us
due to the hills. IMO, slipping a clutch
decreases the life more than a
hard launch. BUT, if you're going to run your
car at the drags, you have
to decide how much you want to risk (in terms of
the rest of the
drivetrain). You'll never break into the 11s (or lower) by
driving as if
you expect your car to last to 150K miles without breaking
something.
I've spun drivelines, broken u-joints, burnt several clutches
and
flywheels over the years. It's the price you pay for the 1/4 mile
just
like open track racers acknowledge they're going to need new
rotors,
pads, fluid, and rubber with MUCH greater frequency than someone
who
drives on the highway at 80 mph in sixth gear.
BTW...since you
wrote that you were hitting the strip on the 7th (two
days ago), how did it
go???
Looking forward...Chris
1995 Glacier Pearl White VR4
(w/custom K&N intake, bored and polished
throttle body, TEC 15G turbos,
RC 560cc injectors, HKS fuel pump,
ARC2/MAF fuel controller, Split Second A/F
meter, GReddy PRofec A boost
controller, Apex EGT & boost gauges, GReddy
turbo timer, HKS SBOV,
custom intercoolers, Odyssey dry cell battery [soon to
be a trunk
mounted Optima Red Top], Magnecore 8.5mm wires, NGK double
platinum
plugs gapped at .032", ACT 2800 lb pressure plate, Broward six
puck
racing disc, Centerforce throwout bearing, ATR downpipe and test
pipe,
GReddy catback exhaust, Stillen cross-drilled rotors, Porterfield
R4
race pads, SS brake lines, Eibach 1" drop progressive springs,
Michelin
SX MXX3 Pilots on factory 18" chromed wheels)
- -----Original
Message-----
From: Bradford J. Gay
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002
05:14
Anyone got any tips on how to launch these cars in the 1/4?
The first
Test 'n Tune is tomorrow.
- -Brad
97
VR-4
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:04:42
-0700 (PDT)
From: Geoff Mohler <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Re: Evans coolant reply
> upon the solvent, the solute
concentration, and the solute itself. I
> wouldnt' think, tough,
that increasing the pump velocity by 25% would
> cause cavitation.
-
---
Knowing the same amount of info about the Mitsu..as you do about the
RX7
would prove catastrophic..as it has problems at stock RPM levels.
So be
careful those of you that read this, and go thru the tons of effort to
try
it.
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:19:35
-0500
From: "terry haddock" <
thaddoc@dellepro.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Ignition Problems
I recently had to reset the timing on my 1991
3000 GT. I lined up all of the
timing marks on all 4 cams and the crankshaft,
according to the manual, but
now the car will not start. what did I do
wrong?
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:41:51
-0500
From: "Todd D.Shelton" <
tds@brightok.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
sparco brackets...
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren
Schilberg" <
dschilberg@pobox.com>
To:
"'team3s'" <
team3s@speedtoys.com>
Sent: Monday,
April 08, 2002 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: sparco brackets...
>
Damon -- I have a Sparco Evo seat in my car and made a custom-mounting
>
bracket since I did not need sliders (I am the only driver of my
car).
>
> I heard good reviews though of someone recently who had
the brackets
> and/or sliders from Sparco. Perfect fit to stock I
recall.
>
> I have brackets that came with the seat but we made a
jig to attach to
> the stock points (also made it a shade lower than what
is provided by
> Sparco I think and headroom is important when you add a
helmet on top
> and have a power sunroof sucking up headroom
space).
>
> I can get pix, etc. I never did finish a real good
install note page of
> the race seat.
>
> --Flash!
>
www.schilberg.com>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: Damon Rachell
> Sent: Monday,
April 08, 2002 14:19
>
> I just bought a torino seat. I've got
a slider coming, but need the
> brackets. Anyone ever install a Sparco
seat in their car? If so, did
> the sparco provided brackets
work? I've heard that they don't fit and
> they're a waste of
money. True or false?
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great
advice Flash ........
The Sparco brackets have caused a lot of
problems!
The recent discussion we had about brackets that will
fit
correctly was concerning the CORBEAU brackets -
not Sparco.
Here are
messages that were posted to this list by
a member who wanted to use the
Sparco brackets and
feedback from another member who had already
tried.
No one but me seems to remember the info provided so I'll
take
the liberty of reposting this
info:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
March 2001
What specific problems
did you have with the stock sliders? Were they
> just too difficult
to remove from the stock seat, or to install on the
> new seat? Was
the seat too high using the stock sliders? I'm in the
> process of
doing exactly what you've done - I'm trying to put a Sparco
> seat in my
VR-4. If I use the Sparco mount, base & sliders, it will be
>
way too high, so I was hoping maybe the stock sliders would be lower
>
since they are integrated with the base.
> -Steve
> '92
VR-4
The stock sliders are intergrated into the stock seat. Unbolt a TON
of stuff
to remove it. Its a pain but it isn't that hard. Once it's out, the
real
ordeal begins. First thing I noticed is that the bolts sticking up from
the
sliders, of course do not match up with the mounting holes on the
Sparco
side mount base. You'll need to drill out new mount holes. Next, the
seat is
too narrow for the width of the rails. I eneded up mounting one side
mount
base backwards from the other. This narrowed the width perfectly. Now
the
fun part. The slider actuator on the stock sliders exit out the
side. Also,
the actuator mechanism on the left side sticks up and interferes
with the
left Sparco side mount bracket. In order to keep the slider
mechanism in its
spot, I had to cut a slot in the Sparco side mount bracket
to clear the
slider actuator. The right side slider has a metal cover that I
had to grind
off so the Sparco side mount bracket would sit on the slider
flat. Ok, now
the seat can be installed. I put everything in and notice that
the seat was
not level side to side! Appearantly, one slider is higher than
the other! Oh
well, I adjusted that out with the various mounting holes on
the Sparco side
mount base. After all that is when I realized that it sat way
too high, even
adjusted to the lowest mounting holes that I could put the
seat at and still
clear the slider actuator. I MIGHT try to relocate the
slider actuator or
different things to make the seat lower but I'll probably
just end up
bolting the Sparco side mount base to the floor and not have and
sliders....
Oh well
Hoser
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 11:14:59
-0800
From: "Jose Soriano" <
Amahoser@linkline.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Racing seats mounting (OT)
Fitment troubles for the
Stealth....
As far as seat mounting brackets, are you referring to slider
assemblies?
The stock slider is an integral part of the stock seat so if you
want to
retain the sliding mechanism, you have to do a lot of work to remove
the
stock sliders and find a way to adapt them to your seat. Or see if
sliders
are available for our cars. I went the hard way and modified the
stock
sliders.... what a pain! I wouldn't recommend that! Now the troubles.
After
I had the Sparco seat installed. I sat in the car and noticed that my
head
was real close to the roof! I lowered the seat all the way and the
clearance
was adequate but not if I had a helmet on! With a helmet, I had
only about
two inches. This isn't enough as most sanctioning bodies want a
few inches
from the top of your head to the bottom of the roll bar top hoop!
I got into
a 3/S with a stock seat and noticed that the lowering mechanism
allows the
seat to go BELOW the slider mechanism! I got in a 3/S with a
Sparco seat and
Sparco sliders and noted the same clearance problem as in my
car! And I'm
only 5'9"! So I am going to mount my seat without sliders!
Bummer!
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:24:32
-0500
From: "Todd D.Shelton" <
tds@brightok.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Re: Alcohol and O2 sensor safety
- ----- Original Message -----
From:
"xwing" <
xwing@wi.rr.com>
To:
<
team3s@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent:
Monday, April 08, 2002 3:42 PM
Subject: Team3S: Re: Alcohol and O2 sensor
safety
> I recall from YEARS back reading that methanol can poison the
O2 sensors,
> but ethanol does not. That is why I avoided some
octane boosters that
> contain methanol.
>
> So of course it
makes no sense that my new expensive ERL Aquamist MF2 has
a
> sticker
on the box reading
> "Methanol is the only alcolhol that should be used,
using up to 50%
mixture.
> DO NOT USE ANY ETHANOL BASED ALCOHOL'S AS
THIS WILL CAUSE PUMP FAILURE."
> (capitals are by THEM not me).
>
So, the Experts of the World seem to have differing opinions, and I
don't
> have a consensus trend to follow as yet...
> Jack T.
-
--------------------------
Sounds more like a disclaimer/warning not to
use ethanol because the ERL
pump wasn't built to withstand it. SMC has
issued a similiar warning saying
not to use their ethanol pump with methanol
but they don't address the
effects
on O2 sensors either.
While my
own testing with dist water and water/denatured mixes showed
pure 100%
denatured alc (pure ethanol) to be best (lowest knock at
highest boost on TMO
datalogger/SMC), one of the GN owners
provided some testing data from
different mixes and here is what he posted:
John Estill's
calcs:
Water injection: 0.40 lb/min of water will vaporize, cooling the
air down
from 150 F to 109 F.
Methanol:
100%: 1.08 lb/min of
methanol will vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F to
96 F.
50%: 0.55
lb/min of methanol/water will vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F
to 107
F
Ethanol: [Denatured Alcohol]
100%: 1.26 lb/min of ethanol will
vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F to
100 F.
50%: 0.57 lb/min of
ethanol/water will vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F
to 108
F
Isopropyl:
70%: 0.76 lb/min of alcohol will vaporize, cooling the
air from 150 F to 107
F.
91%: 1.14 lb/min of alcohol will vaporize,
cooling the air from 150 F to 104
F.
100: 1.50 lb/min of alcohol will
vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F to 102
- - tds
http://www.brightok.net/~tds***
Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:43:15
+0200
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Re: Alcohol and O2 sensor safety
And water alone
???
Also remember that the position of the nozzle/jet is important too. I
once
read on the GN board those data too and they just took the assumption
that
the intake temperature always stays 150°F what is wrong. The discharge
temp
changes over boost pressure what is directly related to the compressor
efficiency islands. In some drawings, the discharge temperature is also
shown in relation to the cfm and ratio. The intercooler also plays its role
in this calculation.
In my tests I saw 96°C (!!!) in the y-pipe at
1.0 bar boost with the 13g.
This was reduced with 100% water to around 68°C.
On another test (1h
later), I saw 90°C and with 50% methanol it was reduced
to 75°C. The
sprayed amount was the same and did not vary like in their
test.
Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch>Sounds more like a
disclaimer/warning not to use ethanol because the ERL
>pump wasn't built
to withstand it. SMC has issued a similiar warning saying
>not to
use their ethanol pump with methanol but they don't address
the
>effects
>on O2 sensors either.
>
>While my own
testing with dist water and water/denatured mixes showed
>pure 100%
denatured alc (pure ethanol) to be best (lowest knock at
>highest boost on
TMO datalogger/SMC), one of the GN owners
>provided some testing data from
different mixes and here is what he posted:
>
>
>John Estill's
calcs:
>
>Water injection: 0.40 lb/min of water will vaporize,
cooling the air down
>from 150 F to 109
F.
>
>Methanol:
>100%: 1.08 lb/min of methanol will vaporize,
cooling the air from 150 F to
>96 F.
>50%: 0.55 lb/min of
methanol/water will vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F
>to 107
F
>
>Ethanol: [Denatured Alcohol]
>100%: 1.26 lb/min of
ethanol will vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F to
>100 F.
>50%:
0.57 lb/min of ethanol/water will vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F
>to
108 F
>
>Isopropyl:
>70%: 0.76 lb/min of alcohol will
vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F to 107
>F.
>91%: 1.14 lb/min of
alcohol will vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F to 104
>F.
>100:
1.50 lb/min of alcohol will vaporize, cooling the air from 150 F to
102
*** Info:
http://www.Team3S.com/Rules.htm
***
------------------------------
End of Team3S: 3000GT &
Stealth V1
#807
***************************************