Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth    Thursday, May 23 2002    Volume 01 : Number 848




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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 07:27:38 -0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Turbos...Choices

Here is what I am trying to do, there are 2 local guys that I hang out with
every week or so. well one has a TD05-18G equipped 3KGT and one has a SP 70
equipped MKIV.  The VR-4 did not pull on the Supra when they went from a
roll out but the Supra did not walk away top end either.  I want to pull on
the VR-4 and be able to knock on the Supra's window, If i can do this with
357's great otherwise its 368's
 
Roger I remeber about the injetors  if I go with 368's I am getting 850CC
injectors, If I go with something else I am getting 750 Ball style
injectors.  The intercooler issue I have already decided on (PPE FMIC +
Matching Alum Radiator).  I am simply trying to reach my performance without
trying to over do it.   The old saying dont use a sledhammer to drive in a
roofing nail comes to my mind at this moment.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roger Gerl [mailto:roger.gerl@bluewin.ch]
Sent: Tue 5/21/2002 6:22 PM
To: team3s
Cc:
Subject: Re: Team3S: Turbos...Choices


> While we are on this thread I am revisiting my turbo choices Narrowed down

> to these 357 Mags, 368SX's, DR650's.  Now I know the 368's are the largest

> and have the greatest power potential however how do the others stack up?
> Are the 357 or 650 capable of 400 AWHP on pump gas without water injection

> obviously with the supporting mods)?

Wwhat power potential ?? You should ask yourself what power you want to have

on what rpm and then calculate the amount of fuel you need and therefore the

appropriate amount of air. Then choose the right turbos with the right
intercoolers.

Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:28:38 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

It always amazes me to see numbers like these. AAM ranks as perhaps the top
street tuner on the planet, even above Formula 1 teams!

1.4 "bar" is about 20 psi boost. Assuming a 100ºF intake air temp and a 14 psi
barometric pressure, at 6000 RPM and 95% VE about 725 cfm (or about 2950
lb/hr) of (uncompressed) air flows. Using a 12.5 A/F as the ratio for best
power (though more fuel may be added for cooling effects), about 235 lb/hr of
fuel is used for power.

Now here comes the "tuner of the planet" award. It requires a phenomenal 0.33
BSFC to produce about 714 crank HP given the above specs (assuming about 100
HP drivetrain loss). The 800 claimed crank HP requires a BSFC less than 0.30!

The dyno is correct right? The physics are well established right? Even
Formula 1 teams are tickled pink with a 0.35 BSFC. So AAM must be the best
street tuner on the planet!

Chuck, any track times to go with the dyno numbers?

:)

Jeff Lucius, http://www.stealth316.com/

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <StealthCT@aol.com>
To: <team3s@team3s.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:05 PM
Subject: Team3S: DYNO #'s

I dynoed my car at AAM today.  Temperature around 65 degrees, boost set at
1.4 bar 610WHP and 500 max torque.  If you are interested in my mods go to
the AAM web site and click on Chuck's car.  Regards  Chuck

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:28:14 -0500
From: "Matt Jannusch" <mjannusch@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

> I dynoed my car at AAM today.  Temperature around 65 degrees, boost set at
> 1.4 bar 610WHP and 500 max torque.  If you are interested in my mods go to
> the AAM web site and click on Chuck's car.  Regards  Chuck

At only 1.4 bar?  I'd have to say that I'm skeptical.

Take her to the dragstrip and make a few passes.  10's shouldn't be a
problem.  You can hold the record for a while.  :-)

- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:36:41 -0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: DYNO #'s

A few things to keep in mind here..... 
1) Dyno jets generally give their numbers with a +9% correction factor 
2) Chuck you were definitely running race gas now question is octane 100,
104, 110? 
3) Its was pretty cool outside so heat soak was less of a problem

A few questions for Chuck 
What clutch setup do you have?
Do you have a CFDS installed on the car if so ACPT or PST?
Did you dyno using those volks that are shown on the AAM site or another set
of wheels?

As an FYI reduction in rotational weight will show an increase in wheel HP
not sure why but have seen this on every car I have ever seen dynoed
regardless of type of Dyno (Mustang Brake, Low Boy, DynoJet)

Russ F
CT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Jannusch [SMTP:mjannusch@attbi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:28 AM
> To: Team3S
> Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s
>
> > I dynoed my car at AAM today.  Temperature around 65 degrees, boost set
> at
> > 1.4 bar 610WHP and 500 max torque.  If you are interested in my mods go
> to
> > the AAM web site and click on Chuck's car.  Regards  Chuck
>
> At only 1.4 bar?  I'd have to say that I'm skeptical.
>
> Take her to the dragstrip and make a few passes.  10's shouldn't be a
> problem.  You can hold the record for a while.  :-)
>
> -Matt
> '95 3000GT Spyder VR4

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:50:33 -0500
From: "Geisel, Brian" <Brian.Geisel@COMPAQ.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: DYNO #'s

> Did you dyno using those volks that are shown on the AAM site
> or another set
> of wheels?
>
> As an FYI reduction in rotational weight will show an
> increase in wheel HP
> not sure why but have seen this on every car I have ever seen dynoed
> regardless of type of Dyno (Mustang Brake, Low Boy, DynoJet)

Russ,
That's how dynos work.  They measure Wheel Horse Power, so if you have stronger wheels, they'll make more horsepower :) <jk>.  Seriously, stronger engine == greater WHP... less loss in the driveline (e.g. less wheel weight) == greater WHP.  Basically, it is Crank Horse Power - driveline losses.

geis

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:53:36 -0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: DYNO #'s

I figured it was something like that....  I just wasn't sure how to explain
it and not sound like a fool,  Especially with all the knowledgeable folks
that are on this list.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geisel, Brian [SMTP:Brian.Geisel@COMPAQ.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:51 AM
> To: Furman, Russell; Team3S
> Subject: RE: Team3S: DYNO #'s
>
> > Did you dyno using those volks that are shown on the AAM site
> > or another set
> > of wheels?
> >
> > As an FYI reduction in rotational weight will show an
> > increase in wheel HP
> > not sure why but have seen this on every car I have ever seen dynoed
> > regardless of type of Dyno (Mustang Brake, Low Boy, DynoJet)
>
> Russ,
> That's how dynos work.  They measure Wheel Horse Power, so if you
> have stronger wheels, they'll make more horsepower :) <jk>.  Seriously,
> stronger engine == greater WHP... less loss in the driveline (e.g. less
> wheel weight) == greater WHP.  Basically, it is Crank Horse Power -
> driveline losses.
>
> geis

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:49:41 -0700
From: "fastmax" <fastmax@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

Newton had some information on that --- he basically said that objects
need an outside force to cause them to change their motion. In the case
of a driveline the engine has to rotate a bunch of parts --- flywheel, shafts,
gears, clutch, U-joints, driveshaft, halfshafts, wheels, tires etc. etc. --- all
these things require force [ HP ] to change their rotational speed. For this
discussion I'm ignoring the main factor which is the inertia of the car itself
and it's linear acceleration.

The faster the rate of change [ angular acceleration ] the more horsepower
required --- and the more mass [ weight ] you have to rotate the more power
it requires also. This shows up as a drivetrain loss 'but' only under acceleration,
once a steady state speed is achieved the rotational inertia of the driveline
no longer affects horsepower --- note: driveline frictional losses are still present
and require power to overcome them. I'm working in a perfect world here and
as such I allow myself to ignore them  ;-)

One of the thing that confuses me is: the higher the angular acceleration the
more power consumed. On an inertial dyno [ dynojet ] do they control the
rate of acceleration or just go WOT in 3rd gear ??? On brake dynos one
method is to accelerate to a certain rpm and go to WOT while the dyno
measures the load required to hold that rpm [ no angular acceleration is
taking place ]. The load is reduced, the rpm is advanced 500 rpm at which
point full throttle is applied and the load again adjusted to hold that rpm. When
completed you have a set of rpm/load numbers that can plot a horsepower
curve without driveline inertia being measured ----- how much difference will
you see in HP values at a certain rpm now that angular acceleration is
removed from the test ???

The rate at which angular acceleration occurs has an effect on HP readings.
On an inertial dyno if you have a very small, light drum the angular
acceleration is high so the force required to overcome driveline inertia is high.
A big, heavy drum will have the opposite effect.

Any dyno experts out there ??????
=====================================================

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Furman, Russell" <RFurman2@MassMutual.com>

> As an FYI reduction in rotational weight will show an increase in wheel HP
> not sure why but have seen this on every car I have ever seen dynoed
> regardless of type of Dyno (Mustang Brake, Low Boy, DynoJet)
>
> Russ F

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:53:15 +0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

Ahem, I "was" sceptical too but did the math also.

The power out of 6 720cc at 95% IDC is around 710hp at 0.55 BSFC. This is
absolutely correct and enough fuel is there too.

The air needed for this with your calculator on your site is 819cfm at 20.6
psi (I did the calc with a leaner 12.5 ratio). That again is correct and
with two large turbos it is possible too. The easier formula just tells
809cfm at 7000rpm at 1.4 bars of boost what is in the same range.

So he measured 610 WHP with a loss of aorund 100hp results in 710 hp at the
crank what sounds absolutely right !

Hmm, my math seems to be ok and IMHO it's true. Also your math on the site
is telling this so why should it be wrong ?? Please explain !

Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Lucius" <jlucius@stealth316.com>
To: <Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

> It always amazes me to see numbers like these. AAM ranks as perhaps the
top
> street tuner on the planet, even above Formula 1 teams!
>
> 1.4 "bar" is about 20 psi boost. Assuming a 100ºF intake air temp and a 14
psi
> barometric pressure, at 6000 RPM and 95% VE about 725 cfm (or about 2950
> lb/hr) of (uncompressed) air flows. Using a 12.5 A/F as the ratio for best
> power (though more fuel may be added for cooling effects), about 235 lb/hr
of
> fuel is used for power.
>
> Now here comes the "tuner of the planet" award. It requires a phenomenal
0.33
> BSFC to produce about 714 crank HP given the above specs (assuming about
100
> HP drivetrain loss). The 800 claimed crank HP requires a BSFC less than
0.30!
>
> The dyno is correct right? The physics are well established right? Even
> Formula 1 teams are tickled pink with a 0.35 BSFC. So AAM must be the best
> street tuner on the planet!
>
> Chuck, any track times to go with the dyno numbers?
>
> :)
>
> Jeff Lucius, http://www.stealth316.com/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <StealthCT@aol.com>
> To: <team3s@team3s.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:05 PM
> Subject: Team3S: DYNO #'s
>
> I dynoed my car at AAM today.  Temperature around 65 degrees, boost set at
> 1.4 bar 610WHP and 500 max torque.  If you are interested in my mods go to
> the AAM web site and click on Chuck's car.  Regards  Chuck

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:13:39 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

Calculations can be done different ways with the different calculators I have
on my web page below.

http://www.stealth316.com/2-air-fuel-flow.htm

For those that want to follow along, go to the calculator on the bottom of
that web page. Enter 720 for injector cc/min, enter 95% for IDC, and leave
BSFC at 0.55. Click on "calculate" and 710.64 HP is indicated. Now go down one
line and enter 100ºF for the air temp at the air filter and 14 psi for
pressure at the air filter. leave A/F at 12.5 and click on "calculate" again
and 1205.4 CFM of uncompressed air is indicated.

OK, so what boost pressure (or density ratio), RPM, and volumetric efficiency
(VE) combinations are required to get 1205 cfm into our 6 cylinders? Go up to
the second calculator on this web page called "Volume air flow". Enter 3 under
liters, 6000 under RPM, 95 under "Natural capacity" and 4 under density ratio.
Click on "calculate" and 1207.8 cfm is indicated. A DR or 4.0 would be 42 psi
boost (assuming 14 psi is at the air filter). Now go back and enter 7000 under
RPM and change the DR to 3.42. Click on "calculate" and 1204.7 cfm is
indicated. A DR of 3.42 would would be 33.88 psi boost (14 psi ambient).

I am not sure where Roger got his 1.4 bar boost number at, but 720 cc/min
injectors (or 68 lb/hr) at 95% IDC flow about 388 lb/hr of fuel. Pick your A/F
and get the air mass flow: A/F=12 --> 4651 lb/hr or A/F=13 --> 5044 lb/hr.
That is A LOT of air! 1.4 bar of boost in our engine will simply not flow that
amount unless air temp in th eplenum is like -50ºF.

Something to note. All these calulators assume the plenum air temp is the same
as the intake air temp, that is, a 100% efficient intercooler is being used
Turbo efficiency makes no difference in this case.

Now, how I arrived at my numbers. "Reset" all the calculators on web page. Go
to first calculator "Air Density" and enter 100ºF and 14 psi and click on
Calculate. Some fields will be automatically filled-in in lower calculators
Now go the next calculator "Volume air flow" and enter 3 for liters, 7000 for
RPM, 95 for VE, and 2.4 for DR (1.4 bar is about 2.4 DR). Click
on "calculate". More fields are filled in below. Now go to the next calculator
and just click on "calculate". And again, go to the next calculator "Fuel
Flow" and click on calculate. HP should be 500.09. Change BSFC to 0.35 and
click on calculate to get 785 HP. The difference between these numbers and my
earlier estimate is the difference between using 7000 RPM and 6000 RPM.

As I said, AAM is better than Formula 1 Teams!

Uh, Chuck, you say (on 3SI) your car is no dyno queen and has been to the
track many times. So why don't you tell us what the track times are? Hmmm,
haven't we all been through this before?

:)

Jeff Lucius, http://www.stealth316.com/

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Gerl" <roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
To: <Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

Ahem, I "was" sceptical too but did the math also.

The power out of 6 720cc at 95% IDC is around 710hp at 0.55 BSFC. This is
absolutely correct and enough fuel is there too.

The air needed for this with your calculator on your site is 819cfm at 20.6
psi (I did the calc with a leaner 12.5 ratio). That again is correct and
with two large turbos it is possible too. The easier formula just tells
809cfm at 7000rpm at 1.4 bars of boost what is in the same range.

So he measured 610 WHP with a loss of aorund 100hp results in 710 hp at the
crank what sounds absolutely right !

Hmm, my math seems to be ok and IMHO it's true. Also your math on the site
is telling this so why should it be wrong ?? Please explain !

Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:53:23 -0400
From: pvg1@daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

Sorry, I am a little bit out of touch with the common BSFC numbers. Is F1
really a benchmark for fuel efficiency? I find this hard to believe,
although I do not have any hard numbers. What is the absolute best BSFC
known to mankind?

Also, I thought our cars should not be that bad considering that we have
turbos and intercoolers. That should improve the efficiency somewhat.

Philip

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

Now here comes the "tuner of the planet" award. It requires a phenomenal
0.33
BSFC to produce about 714 crank HP given the above specs (assuming about
100
HP drivetrain loss). The 800 claimed crank HP requires a BSFC less than
0..30!

The dyno is correct right? The physics are well established right? Even
Formula 1 teams are tickled pink with a 0.35 BSFC. So AAM must be the best

street tuner on the planet!

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:38:20 -0700
From: "ek2mfg" <ek2mfg@foxinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

I would think this could all be settled by a simple post of his dyno
run.....as it ends all arguments for 1/4 mile times why would we as a
group discredit a dyno sheet printed out from the machine...now
granted we as a group have not seen this as of yet but why would AAM
put thier reputation on the line for giving bad dyno runs. (this car
has plenty of work done to it and they are showing it off on the site
as well) Once that got out one would think that they are dishonest
and unprofessional....I really doubt this is the case. All of the
formulas on all of the websites are good and all but I would think
these machines are calibrated and give good "wheel HP". we could also
go back and forth about altitude and temps and humidity and bla bla
bla.......I Have run two dyno sessions...three runs each session...I
have results for each run as does the shop that has the dyno.....I am
sure AAM has the same set-up on a computer to hand this stuff out
(given that it is private property of the owner of the car and would
require his approval) this could easily be sent as an email in text
form. As for the F-1 boys I still have a hard time with the whole
"drive the car upside-down in a tunnel" thing due to vaccuum created
under the car.....Shumakker ROCKS!!!

I was informed that given all of the variables of a wheel dyno
machine you can add 5hp by simply changing air presure in the tires.
But the numbers are the numbers.....a horse pulling one ton up a
cliff and a measure of time....the curves cross at 5200rpm because of
the mathatics involved.

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:43:50 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject: Team3S: Spark plug cross reference guide

Using the best info I could find on the internet, I made a guide for cross
referencing spark plugs for our turbo DOHC engines on the web page below.

http://www.stealth316.com/2-sparkplugxref.htm

This guide is also available on my Spark Plug Tech page.

http://www.stealth316.com/2-sparkplugtech.htm

I would appreciate any additions or corrections.

Questions for Jack T. or other users of NGK R5672A-8, a non-resistor, two-heat-
range colder plug. Do you notice any problems because there is no resistor?
Also, does this plug use the 5/8" socket like stock or 13/16" socket?

Thanks,

Jeff Lucius, http://www.stealth316.com/

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:59:38 +0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

I made an error in my theory and of course Jeff is right. Although I do not
use the calculators on the webpage as they are not clear enough what they
do. Maybe making the thigns easier would help.

Anyways, the math is easier than we all think :

Base VR4 :
- - hp = 310hp
- - boost = 0.70 bar
- - air-flow at 6000rpm = 535cfm (assumed BSFC 0.5)
- - IDC 78%, 360cc injectors (measured)

Tested VR4 :
- - hp = 710 hp
- -> Gain = 400hp => 2.29 * Gain factor

The result is now easy to calculate as we desire a gain factor of 2.29.
Therfore just multiply the fuel and air needed (to keep the same A/F ratio).
The result is :

78% * 2.29 = 179% IDC for 360cc or 89% IDC for 720cc injectors.

Here one can use Jeffs calculators and the result is about 20hp off than the
simple method.

So, if we want to have 2.3 times more horsepower :
a) we need 2.3 times more fuel
b) we need 2.3 times more air

a) is ok as we have 89% IDC with the 720cc (although too high IDC)

b) at 6000 and 0,7 bar boost we had 535 cfm air flow. Therefore we need :
535 cfm * 2.29 = 1225 cfm

Again, one can use the calc from Jeff and the result is very close.

Now, this all seems to be no problem as large turbos like the GT368 can
provide this air easily.

The problem with the information provided is that 1.4 bar cannot be right at
all. This, because our engine flows 881cfm at 1.4 bars @ 7000rpm with a good
possible BSFC of 0.5. As Jeff correctly indicated, this is simply
impossible.

Now doing the calc and assuming that the engine should flow the desired 1225
cfm, the boost must be : 2.35 bars of boost.

Ok, now either the dyno of AAM is showing way too high numbers or Chuck is
running indeed 2.35 bars of boost. The DSBC can control boost in this
region, this is true. But can the internals handle this horrible high boost.

Well, I believe Chuck that he runned 1.4 bars of boost what is a lot for
sure. Therefore the hp numbers are wrong. I'd also say that only the track
proves the real hp number ... I'd never thought I'd say this ;-)

Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Lucius" <jlucius@stealth316.com>
To: <Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

> Calculations can be done different ways with the different calculators I
have
> on my web page below.
>
> http://www.stealth316.com/2-air-fuel-flow.htm
>
> BSFC at 0.55. Click on "calculate" and 710.64 HP is indicated. Now go down
one
> line and enter 100ºF for the air temp at the air filter and 14 psi for
> and 1205.4 CFM of uncompressed air is indicated.
>

<snip>

>
> As I said, AAM is better than Formula 1 Teams!
>
> Uh, Chuck, you say (on 3SI) your car is no dyno queen and has been to the
> track many times. So why don't you tell us what the track times are? Hmmm,
> haven't we all been through this before?
>
> :)

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 00:14:09 +0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Turbos...Choices

> Here is what I am trying to do, there are 2 local guys that I hang out
with
> every week or so. well one has a TD05-18G equipped 3KGT

Show me the TD05-18G :)

> Roger I remeber about the injetors  if I go with 368's I am getting 850CC
> injectors, If I go with something else I am getting 750 Ball style
> injectors.

Why ?

>  The intercooler issue I have already decided on (PPE FMIC +
> Matching Alum Radiator).  I am simply trying to reach my performance
without
> trying to over do it.   The old saying dont use a sledhammer to drive in a
> roofing nail comes to my mind at this moment.

FMIC is ok to provide low intake temps but what are you doing to the
internals. Maybe you already installed forged pistons, rods cranks. Again,
waht boost do you plan on what rpm to run ? Don't forget the weak tranny and
a good clutch that is able to hold the tranny-braking power.

Big $$$ ahead ... I know it is expensive :(

Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:31:01 -0700
From: "Gross, Erik" <erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: RE: A pillar install

I'm a little late in this one - been out of town for a few days...

> > >Im wiring the guage light into the radio dimmer, that way
> > >if I dim my cluster lights, the guage light will dim as well!

> > Do not try to wire the gauge in such a way so that it will
> > dim down with the dimmer switch. 

> Depends on the guage, I have the HKS peak hold and they have
> a seperate wire for the light.

3/Ss (and DSMs AFAIK) use a floating-ground dimming circuit to handle the
interior lighting.  I can go into more details if you like, but the
over-simplification is that instead of reducing the power wire (+12V)
voltage to dim the lights, it raises the ground wire (+0V) voltage.  This
means that if you move the dimmer so that the voltage across the lights is
8V (rather than 12V), the power (+12V) wire has *not changed its voltage to
8V* - what happens is that the ground wire (used to be +0V) is now at +4V
and the power wire is still at +12V (12V - 4V = 8V across lights).  I was
quite dismayed when I realized this as I was trying to wire up my gauges...

So the point of all this is that some gauges have separate power wires for
lighting, constant, and switched circuits... but they usually (all that I've
seen) have only one ground wire.  This means that if you hook the power wire
for the gauge lights to the power wire for the interior lights, the gauge
lighting won't dim.  If you hook up the ground wire for the gauges to the
ground wire for the lights, the memory and gauge functions will not work if
you dim the lights much (because the gauge has one ground wire for
everything).

Thus, unless you have a mechanical gauge (like Jim mentioned) that only has
one power/ground connection that is ONLY for the lighting, you are SOL as
far as getting your gauge lighting to dim with the rest of the interior
lighting.  At least, I've not figured an easy way to make an electronic
gauge's lighting circuit work with the stock interior lighting circuit.  If
anyone has made it work, PLEASE let me know :-) 

If I get motivated, I may jury-rig a circuit that will invert the stock
dimming functionality so I can make the electronic gauges work... but so far
I've been lazy.

- --Erik

'95 Black on White VR-4 (parts)
'95 White on Black VR-4 (whee!)

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 01:23:31 +0200
From: "Roger Gerl" <roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

Here's a link to the supra guys and their dynos ....
http://vache.org/supra/turbos.htm

It seems they all run a BSFC of below 0.4 !! Or how can we explain this good
numbers ? 640hp @ 21 psi of boost.

I'm totally confused now. Are these US-dyno ratings totally wrong ?

My measures are (crank) 467PS @ 1.24 bars and 394PS @ 1.18 bars so far on
our dynos. This is WAY off the 517hp he claims at the wheels at 1.1 bar. The
Supras here are measured with 440hp crank @ 1.2 bars of boost.(stock
turbos). Also pretty off to the stock Supras.

Any ideas ??

Roger
93'3000GT TT
www.rtec.ch

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:40:39 EDT
From: StealthCT@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: DYNO #'s

To answer some of your questions, I do have a CFDS, I have the RPS
Carbon/Carbon set up  which includes a light weight flywheel and I do dyno
with the Volks.  I believe my biggest improvement over earlier results was
the installation of the Pit Road M Cams.  I don't have a scanner however if
anyone wants a copy of my run please contact AAM and I am sure they will
provide one.  As a side note there was another 3SI member there at the time
of the dyno testing who had driven from Ohio to have his car dynoed also. 
His car was dynoed right after mine (within an hour) and you can see his
results on the 3SI site and I am sure if you want to E-mail him he can
confirm my results as some of you apparently do not trust AAM.  Regards  Chuck

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:03:32 -0500
From: "Richard Fennell" <realmstl@charter.net>
Subject: Fw: Team3S: ecu rebuild

I sent a request for info about an ECU for my Starion and they still haven't
replied.  It's been over a week.

If you can't get service on a simple request, I don't think the service
after the sale would be too good either.

Rich
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Fowler" <richfowler2@cox.net>
To: <Team3S@stealth-3000gt.st>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Team3S: ecu rebuild

> I was looking for ECU rebuild sits and came across www.fulllogic.com  From
> their website it looks like they have a $250 special for any Mitsubishi
ECU
> - hopefully this works for a 3/S and not only DSMs!
>
> Rich F
>
> on 5/15/02 10:25 AM, Justin Sturgeon at justinstur@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know anything about the AVPRO company that is listed on
Jeff's
> > site that rebuilds our ecu's?  I visited the AVPRO website and I called
the
> > guy on the phone.  His prices seem very low, his website was very
> > professional, and he sounded competent on the phone.  I was just a
little
> > concerned because he does not except credit cards; only money orders.
Has
> > anyone dealth with this guy before?
> > Thanks
> >
> > Justin Sturgeon
> > 91 Stealth R/T

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:25:14 EDT
From: StealthCT@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: Dyno results

I guess I should have also mentioned that my engine has been bored .20 over,
and that I was running race gas (117 Octane).  Finally it should be noted
that AAM sponsored the Corvette club who brought over about 15 cars to have
dyno'ed .  This included the new Z06.  The numbers they posted on the AAM
dyno (and I was there) were all very similar to the same numbers reflected in
all of the magazines I have read that have reported WHP.  Their WHP numbers
were also inline with the estimated drivetrain loss on these vehicles.  I
have every intention to taking my car to the track and reporting the results
regarless of what they are, however from my perspective track times are less
reliable than dyno numbers because of all the variables (track condition,
weather, launch, driver ability).  My last run on a track (before I blew my
engine) I posted a 60ft of 1.68 a 1/4 time of 11.7 at 120MPH and that was
with stock engine, stock wheels and 15 g turbos.  BTW I was also running
nitrous.  Regards Chuck

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:53:05 -0700
From: "fastmax" <fastmax@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S: DYNO #'s

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <StealthCT@aol.com>

>  I believe my biggest improvement over earlier results was
> the installation of the Pit Road M Cams. 

What were the numbers before the Pitroad M cams ?????????

        Jim Berry

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:36:13 EDT
From: M3000GTSL84@aol.com
Subject: Team3S: HELP!!! air intake problem!

Hey guys-just got a K&N FIPK, and intake pipe from dynamic racing for my SL.
The filter was easy enough to install-but the pipe is a BIG problem. First-it
doesnt seem to fit right, second, the seal is FAR from air tight-i parked the
car for the nite as i was getting very fustrated, but i cant use it till i
get it fixed obviously. I will try to call DR tomarrow for assitance, but any
experiance here would be very helpful. The pipe came with 2 red insulators-
so i thought to put them over the openings to get a better seal. Didnt work.
I feel like a dork for thinking i could get it done in an hour. Right now the
car has the battery connected and everything plugged in-but i wont turn it on
again till  ican be sure i know everything is right. Thanx guys

- -mike
97 SL

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:21:46 -0700
From: "Bob Forrest" <bf@bobforrest.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: HELP!!! air intake problem!

Hey, Mike,

Disconnect the battery negative and leave it off for 10 minutes or so.  If
you put back the connector to the MAS(?) and you have a sealed path, when
you start again, the ECU will go into "learn" mode to reset the engine for
more air coming in.  BTW, did you get a drop-in filter, or a complete new
unit with a conical filter to replace the entire airbox?  The latter is the
FIPK, the former is just called a filtercharger or something.  Details on
our "Aftermarket Intakes" page - see the FAQ Index.  I must admit -
something doesn't sound right...  What "openings" do you mean?  The
non-turbo pipe has one opening at each end, and a small nipple near the
Throttle Body for the EGT hose.  If it came with a resonator port, you can
cap that or use the resonator.  But if you got a pipe that is a "Y" config,
then maybe they shipped you a Y-pipe for a turbo?  Ya gotta give us more
info...

Best,

Forrest

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:49:07 -0500
From: "echeek" <echeek@cox-internet.com>
Subject: Team3S: Hesitation problem

Ok 92 VR4, idles fine but won't run at a constant speed fine, such as 60
MPH in 5th. It cuts out every so often, not so much that the tach moves, but
you can feel it. When the car is cold it is more pronounced than when it is
warm. The car has new timing belt, new water pump (replaced with the belt)
new spark plugs at stock gap, new Magnacor 8mm wires, new fuel filter and a
K&N FIPK. Other than the K&N the car is stock.
When accelerating it doesn't hesitate, but I can't accelerate for ever ;-).

Tried different gears at the same speed, as well as different speeds to see
if that would change the effect. There is a slight change, it is worse at
lower speeds/RPMs but does it at any speed/RPM.

Tested the acceleration position sensor with a digital and analog meter,
didn't see any cuts or voltage drops.

So I'm running out of ideas, any one else have any thoughts before letting
satan look at it ?

No check engine lights have come on .....

Thanks,

Eric C. 92 VR4

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:54:44 -0700
From: "dakken" <dougusmagnus@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S: Hesitation problem

I have had a problem similar to yours.  It turned out to be a bad tank of
gas.  About 3 tanks of good gas later, the problem was gone and never came
back.  Hope this helps.

Doug
92 Stealth RT TT

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 02:13:27 -0400
From: "Mihai Raicu" <mraicu@wayne.edu>
Subject: Team3S: Fishtailing in dry weather and almost normal road

A note to everyone about safety:

Today I was driving on the freeway ~70 mph in a zone where the
construction guys prepared the concrete road for repaving.  They did
this by carving longitudinal small ruts in the road.  It was a slight
turn, and I had to break.  I pressed on the breaks lightly, and my car
started fishtailing.  The car went to the right/left ~4 times.  I
managed to keep it my lane and with every swerve the car got
better/straighter after corrections.   It scared me really badly for
something like this to come out of the blue.  However, after
reconsideration, what happened was absolutely normal.

Here is why.  Those grooves in the road reduce the contact patch with
the road significantly.  Best case scenario is a 50% reduction in
traction from the grooves, however, the reduction is probably even worse
(probably in the neighborhood of ~20% due to the sinusoidal shape of the
grooves).  I need to take a closer look one of these days at the grooves
to get a better estimate in the traction reduction.

The moral of the story is to treat these grooves as severely decreased
traction, such as something more than rain but less than ice.  Leave
plenty of room and do not do any sudden moves.  No taking the turns too
fast either.  YOUR CAR WILL NOT STICK TO THE ROAD.  The same lesson from
above applies to those iron mesh bridges.  There, traction is probably
at 10% for sure.

Drive safely.

- -MIKE-
95 Red VR4

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 06:28:35 EDT
From: M3000GTSL84@aol.com
Subject: Re: Team3S: HELP!!! air intake problem!

Its the cone air filter, and they did ship the right one. however, the pipe
just doesnt seem to fit.

- -mike

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 09:26:25 -0400
From: "Furman, Russell" <RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S: Turbos...Choices

These are the same turbos on Chucks car that we are discussing the validity
of AWHP numbers......

My reason is, it is either 368's or Custom Garretts similar in performance
to the GT's  in either of those cases 850CC's will be a must. Anything
smaller will not require that much fuel unless I plan on running 1.7Kg or
more  :O
The 357's should be more than fine with 750CC's

As for internals, forged pistons + rods along with a 2G crank are already
budgeted for.  As for tranny and transfer case well I am trying to get 2
spare of each :/  Clutch it is a toss up between the RPS carbon twin disc or
the OS Giken Twin Disc.

I am figuring about 16 psi "regular boost"  20psi "high street" (WAI to come
on at 17-18psi)  An then 24-26 PSI on race gas

I know about the cost also....  Looking at over 14K once it is all said
done.....  Ah well speed costs money and I really want to go fast :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Gerl [SMTP:roger.gerl@bluewin.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 6:14 PM
> To: team3s
> Subject: Re: Team3S: Turbos...Choices
>
> > Here is what I am trying to do, there are 2 local guys that I hang out
> with
> > every week or so. well one has a TD05-18G equipped 3KGT
>
> Show me the TD05-18G :)
>
> > Roger I remeber about the injetors  if I go with 368's I am getting
> 850CC
> > injectors, If I go with something else I am getting 750 Ball style
> > injectors.
>
> Why ?
>
> >  The intercooler issue I have already decided on (PPE FMIC +
> > Matching Alum Radiator).  I am simply trying to reach my performance
> without
> > trying to over do it.   The old saying dont use a sledhammer to drive in
> a
> > roofing nail comes to my mind at this moment.
>
> FMIC is ok to provide low intake temps but what are you doing to the
> internals. Maybe you already installed forged pistons, rods cranks. Again,
> waht boost do you plan on what rpm to run ? Don't forget the weak tranny
> and
> a good clutch that is able to hold the tranny-braking power.
>
> Big $$$ ahead ... I know it is expensive :(
>
> Roger
> 93'3000GT TT
> www.rtec.ch

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

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

End of Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth V1 #848
***************************************