Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth Monday, December 9
2002 Volume 02 : Number 020
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 11:48:52 -0800
From: "BlackLight" <
BlackLight@planetice.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Group buy for the lightest 18x9 wheel you're going to find for the
3/S
Am I blind or are there not any prices on there?
- -----Original Message-----
From: Trevor James
Sent: Saturday,
December 07, 2002 9:20 AM
Subject: Team3S: Group buy for the lightest 18x9
wheel you're going to find for the 3/S
I'm getting the P1 QF's because to my knowledge they are THE lightest 18x9
wheel readily available with the correct offset for the 3/S. 14.77 pounds each.
To put that into perspective if you're running stock 18" chromies you would drop
53 pounds worth of rotation mass from these wheels alone.
The P1 QF's are not cheap and they're no steal. The Japanese retail price
is the equivalent to $534.33 and we're going to pay more because they have to
ship them across the pond. The other Buddy Club models are cheaper. I did a
couple searches and there are a few shops selling Buddy Club wheels in the
states but they're asking quite a bit more than the prices for this group
buy.
18x9 +35mm should fit no problem and have plenty of clearance by the front
strut for 275's, lowering, or an intrusive coilover setup. They should stick out
0.669" further than stock and 0.197" further than this:
http://members.cox.net/trevorlj/5.jpgKeep
in mind those are 275/35/18's on 18x9's (+40mm offset) so they're a little wider
than normal 245's.
The only kicker is whether or not they'll clear the calipers. Since I don't
know of anyone that's ever put these wheels on a 3/S I can't say for certain
that they'll clear. Judging by the looks of it the spokes are pretty skinny...I
don't think it'll be a problem and I'm willing to give it a shot.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:10:08 -0700
From: "Trevor James" <
trevorlj@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Group buy for the lightest 18x9 wheel you're going to find for the 3/S
You have to PM or e-mail Jay for prices.
Those of you thinking about buying may want to wait until next week. A 3Si
member is opening up a new shop specializing in hard to find Japanese parts. If
his account with his Japanese distributor goes through we'll be able to get them
cheaper than what the group buy is charging.
Trevor
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "BlackLight" <
BlackLight@Planetice.net>
Sent:
Sunday, December 08, 2002 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Group buy for the
lightest 18x9 wheel you're going to find for the 3/S
> Am I blind or are there not any prices on there?
>
> Matt
Nelson
> 1994 RT TT
>
BlackLight@Planetice.Net>
www.BlackLight.5u.com>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From:
owner-team3s@team3s.com
[mailto:owner-team3s@team3s.com] On
> Behalf Of Trevor James
>
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 9:20 AM
> To:
team3s@team3s.com> Subject: Team3S:
Group buy for the lightest 18x9 wheel you're going to
> find for the
3/S
>
>
http://300zxclub.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=48727>
>
There's more info on their Japanese website:
>
http://www.first-inc.co.jp>
Translator:
http://babelfish.altavista.com>
>
I'm getting the P1 QF's because to my knowledge they are THE lightest
>
18x9 wheel readily available with the correct offset for the 3/S.
> 14.77
pounds each. To put that into perspective if you're running
> stock 18"
chromies you would drop 53 pounds worth of rotation mass
> from these
wheels alone.
>
> The P1 QF's are not cheap and they're no steal.
The Japanese retail
> price is the equivalent to $534.33 and we're going
to pay more because
> they have to ship them across the pond. The other
Buddy Club models
> are cheaper. I did a couple searches and there are a
few shops selling
> Buddy Club wheels in the states but they're asking
quite a bit more
> than the prices for this group buy.
>
>
18x9 +35mm should fit no problem and have plenty of clearance by the
>
front strut for 275's, lowering, or an intrusive coilover setup. They
>
should stick out 0.669" further than stock and 0.197" further than
>
this:
http://members.cox.net/trevorlj/5.jpg>
Keep in mind those are 275/35/18's on 18x9's (+40mm offset) so they're
>
a little wider than normal 245's.
>
> The only kicker is whether or
not they'll clear the calipers. Since I
> don't know of anyone that's
ever put these wheels on a 3/S I can't say
> for certain that they'll
clear. Judging by the looks of it the spokes
> are pretty skinny...I
don't think it'll be a problem and I'm willing
> to give it a
shot.
>
> Trevor James
> 96 R/T TT,
11.65@119.8 on 100 octane &
11.82@116.7 on 93 octane
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:47:51 -0800
From: "BlackLight" <
BlackLight@planetice.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Group buy for the lightest 18x9 wheel you're going to find for the
3/S
What sizes and offsets of those 3 different kinds of wheels will fit our
cars? I was thinking 18x9 and possibly having a higher ?offset? in the rear so
they are a little bit wider looking back there , I think it looks funny that the
body is wider in the back than in the front but the wheels look almost the same
width. I was wondering if adding a strut tower brace and anti sway bar in the
front only would compensate for the under steer it would create.
Please feel free to rip apart any wording I've put in here incorrectly, I
only think I know a little bit about what I'm talking about on this subject,
definitely could have some things messed up or backwards. Thanks for clarifying
things for me!
- -----Original Message-----
From: Trevor James
[mailto:trevorlj@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 3:10
PM
Subject: Re: Team3S: Group buy for the lightest 18x9 wheel you're going to
find for the 3/S
You have to PM or e-mail Jay for prices.
Those of you thinking about buying may want to wait until next week. A 3Si
member is opening up a new shop specializing in hard to find Japanese parts. If
his account with his Japanese distributor goes through we'll be able to get them
cheaper than what the group buy is charging.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:28:36 -0500
From: "Rodriguez,
Elpidio x35617d1" <
x35617@exmail.usma.army.mil>
Subject:
Team3S: OT: Car Accident
Well, first of all I apologize for the slightly off topic post but I felt I
should share the information with the group. It seems the "car meets mountain"
bug is running around all of a sudden making me its last victim. Last Wednesday
I lost control of my car, spun around a couple of time, crossed the median and
slammed into a tree or rock on the other side. I haven't seen the car since I
was unconscious until the paramedics helped me out. I was released from the
hospital today with a broken shoulder blade, a broken rib, 2 more bruised ribs,
a lung contusion, and a bruised pelvis. And this condition was called
"miraculous" based on what my car supposedly looks like now. I guess the Man up
above was really keeping an eye out for me and my passenger (who escaped
unharmed) that night. I remember very little of the accident itself since
everything happened so quick. One moment I'm passing a car the next I'm spinning
out of control. This is what I do remember though. I was in 4th gear when I
caught up to the car I was going to pass. I changed lanes and accelerated before
shifting up to 5th. As soon as I released the clutch, I heard a loud grinding
noise underneath the car and a split second later the entire rear end was
spinning out of control. And that's all I remember until I was getting helped
out of the car by the paramedics. Anyone ever hear of anything like this
happening before? Well, hold of request on parts for now and I'll let you all
know if I'll be parting this bad boy out or not. It's a '94 black Vr-4.
- -E.RDZ
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 21:21:34 -0500
From: "bob atkins" <
ratkins@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Wheel sizing?
Something else that comes into play here is the position of the spherical
bearing (pillow ball) with respect to the camber plate slot. The
farther outboard the bearing is adjusted, the less strut/COILOVER SPRING to
sidewall clearance. I zeroed my camber with the bearing about 3/8" off
full outboard setting. If I went with full outboard settings, I zeroed out
the clearance with stock rim tire size!!!!!!!! Course this limits the
overall amount of negative camber you can throw in at the track through the
camber plates.
g8rbob
'99 VR-4
- ----------
>From: Dennis Ninneman <
dninneman@comcast.net>
>Subject:
Re: Team3S: Wheel sizing?
>Date: Sat, Dec 7, 2002, 11:35 AM
> bob atkins wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the JIC. We've
had Teins on two VR4s .......
> '94 and '97. Although we haven't
actually measured the diameters of
> the stock tubes and Teins, they are,
of course mounted in the same
> positions and 'appear' to be
approximately the same diameter. The
> spring perch on the stock
strut isn't the problem assuming you go
> shorter rather than taller in
tire diameter. Yes, the stock springs
> are MUCH larger in diameter than
the Teins ........ but, they are up
> above the tires (again, assuming
the diameter of the tires used is at least that of the
> stock tires
(245-40x18s). Tight, but tire treads don't contact the
>
bottom of the perch. Tire sidewalls contacting the strut tube is the
> real problem with stock offset and wider tires.
>
> My
comments are related to stock offset wheels. In your case ......
>
the 38mm offset will allow for a wider rim and tires without the
> danger
of rubbing the tubes. More of the rim width (and tire) is to
> the
outside of your wheels as compared to a stock offset wheel. Like
>
you said, the smaller diameter springs on the Teins helps keep things
>
out of the way. On the '94 though, we could NOT put 265-35x18s
>
(Yokohoma's) on with stock rims (and Teins) 255s did fit. Yet on my
> completely stock '93 VR4 (since have sold) I could fit 275-40x17 Eagle
> F1s. Really depends on the manufacturer as well ..........
there's a
> big difference in dimensions for the same size
tires.
>
> Dennis -==- Philly
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 21:29:33 -0500
From: "bob atkins" <
ratkins@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Suspensions and Ride Quality
Stock spring rates are in the manual in the suspension section. TEIN
HA
without a special order come with "12" and "8" springs front and rear
respectively. I did the calcs and they are nearly 3 times the stiffness of
stock - but JIC FLT-A2's show 14 and 9 - even stiffer - for their stock VR-4
setup. I have found that the best ride (IMHO) with the TEIN is with fairly stiff
dampening adjustments - just the opposite of what you might think - There is a
limit though - Don't max out.
g8rbob
'99VR-4
- ----------
>From: Dennis Ninneman <
dninneman@comcast.net>
>Subject:
Re: Team3S: Suspensions and Ride Quality
>Date: Sat, Dec 7, 2002, 12:00
PM
> Tein supposedly makes many different springs for their
coilovers. I'm
> thinking of changing to a softer spring by trying
to find a set that
> is about 10-15% stiffer than stock. The
springs that came with the
> Teins should have been accompanied by a list
of good nephrologists
> ......... just a tad too stiff for the terrible
roads of
> Pennsylvania!! Besides, with the Saner bars now I have
less need for
> increased rate at each corner. One thing to
consider, however, the
> lower the car the more potential of bottoming
out over rough roads
> using stock spring rates. don't know how
much you're planning on
> lowering ....... be careful. Mine in
about 2" lower. I'm
> apprehensive about going too soft for that
reason.
>
> Anyone know the spring rates of both the front and rears
on the
> various VR4s??
>
> Dennis -==- Philly
------------------------------
Brody:
I think what you are looking at is the receiver dryer. It is a
cylinder about 6 inches long and 2 inches in diameter with two lines connecting
to it on the top and a sightglass on the top. There is a filter in there
that eventually plugs up. The compressor will short cycle and you will get
just little puffs of cool air. If you have refrigerant gauges it is easy
to diagnose. I got one at O'reillys for about $35 and did the R134
conversion at the same time. No problems since. I don't know what
everybody's problem with R134 is. I have converted 3 cars with no
problems. You do have to replace the receiver/dryer and add a charge
of oil when you do the conversion but otherwise it is straightforward. The
latent heat of vaporization is only about 85% of that of R12 so it does not work
quite as well. However I have never seen a day around here where the
compressor ran 100% of the time once the car was cooled down. To the
phosgene question you can create it from pretty much any CFC if you get it hot
enough to combust, like working on the system with a torch. This should
never happen in a automotive system since all the connections are done with some
kind of a mechanical seal not soldered or brazed. Also all the components
are aluminum, not copper, so they are not solderable in the first place.
My credentials on this are several years in the R&D lab at Lennox
Industries (HVAC manufacturer).
Jim W
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:07:04 -0500
From: "Alex Pedenko" <
alex@kolosy.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
OT: Car Accident
Sounds like the transfer case locked up...
Alex
'95 VR4
- -----Original Message-----
From: Rodriguez, Elpidio x35617d1
Sent:
Sunday, December 08, 2002 8:29 PM
Subject: Team3S: OT: Car Accident
Well, first of all I apologize for the slightly off topic post but I felt I
should share the information with the group. It seems the "car meets mountain"
bug is running around all of a sudden making me its last victim. Last Wednesday
I lost control of my car, spun around a couple of time, crossed the median and
slammed into a tree or rock on the other side. I haven't seen the car since I
was unconscious until the paramedics helped me out. I was released from the
hospital today with a broken shoulder blade, a broken rib, 2 more bruised ribs,
a lung contusion, and a bruised pelvis. And this condition was called
"miraculous" based on what my car supposedly looks like now. I guess the Man up
above was really keeping an eye out for me and my passenger (who escaped
unharmed) that night. I remember very little of the accident itself since
everything happened so quick. One moment I'm passing a car the next I'm spinning
out of control. This is what I do remember though. I was in 4th gear when I
caught up to the car I was going to pass. I changed lanes and accelerated before
shifting up to 5th. As soon as I released the clutch, I heard a loud grinding
noise underneath the car and a split second later the entire rear end was
spinning out of control. And that's all I remember until I was getting helped
out of the car by the paramedics. Anyone ever hear of anything like this
happening before? Well, hold of request on parts for now and I'll let you all
know if I'll be parting this bad boy out or not. It's a '94 black Vr-4.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:29:27 -0500
From: "Starkey, Jr., Joseph" <
starkeyje@bipc.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: A/C
R134 needs to be compressed to a higher PSI in order for it to work at an
acceptable level. Therefore, R134 conversions in older cars can cause
problems. Compressors in R12 systems are just not set up for the
additional PSI, which leads to their eventual failure through consistent clutch
slippage and the use of the wrong oil. R12 based systems use mineral oil
as the lubricant. Mineral oil is not an acceptable lubricant for R134
systems because of the higher compression--the mineral oil doesn't flow
enough. You need to change the oil to PAG oil. To do this, you have
to remove the compressor from the car and drain as much of the oil out as
possible to prepare it for the PAG oil. (A lot of people don't do this, then
wonder why their AC systems don't get cold after they convert--remember,
overcharging the system doesn't result in a colder system, it results in a
warmer system because there's not enough room for expansion). When you
remove the receiver-drier or accumulator-drier, you need to allow those hoses to
drip as much of the oil out as possible. Then you must replace the
receiver-drier or accumulator-drier with a R134 compatible one. The entire
system must be properly evacuated to remove all traces of R12 and as much of the
mineral oil as possible.
Doing this job right doesn't consist of merely buying a conversion from
Auto Zone for $20 and snapping on a few R134 fittings. R134 will work as a
conversion in a properly maintained system, but you need to do it right.
For more info, see
http://www.patgosscarworld.com/keepingyourcool.htm
- -----Original Message-----
From:
jrwooldr@rockwellcollins.com
[mailto:jrwooldr@rockwellcollins.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 8:56
AM
Subject: Team3S: A/C
Brody:
I think what you are looking at is the receiver dryer. It is a
cylinder about 6 inches long and 2 inches in diameter with two lines connecting
to it on the top and a sightglass on the top. There is a filter in there
that eventually plugs up. The compressor will short cycle and you will get
just little puffs of cool air. If you have refrigerant gauges it is easy
to diagnose. I got one at O'reillys for about $35 and did the R134
conversion at the same time. No problems since. I don't know what
everybody's problem with R134 is. I have converted 3 cars with no
problems. You do have to replace the receiver/dryer and add a charge
of oil when you do the conversion but otherwise it is straightforward. The
latent heat of vaporization is only about 85% of that of R12 so it does not work
quite as well. However I have never seen a day around here where the
compressor ran 100% of the time once the car was cooled down. To the
phosgene question you can create it from pretty much any CFC if you get it hot
enough to combust, like working on the system with a torch. This should
never happen in a automotive system since all the connections are done with some
kind of a mechanical seal not soldered or brazed. Also all the components
are aluminum, not copper, so they are not solderable in the first place.
My credentials on this are several years in the R&D lab at Lennox
Industries (HVAC manufacturer).
------------------------------
There is one really quick fix that works sometimes: Disconnect the circuit
breaker to the ABS. You have to unscrew two bolts that hold the breaker in. Let
it sit for a bit, then plug it back in. With luck, the light will go out. If
that's the case, it's probably a bad relay.
Rich/slow old poop
At 10:48 PM 12/7/02 -0500, Trevor Paciotti wrote:
>Hello all, my
anti-lock indicator light has come on recently, and I was
>wondering if
this problem has occurred on anyone else's vehicle.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 07:53:41 -0800
From: "fastmax" <
fastmax@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Suspensions and Ride Quality
The 14 and 9 combo should be a softer spring --- if the spring rate were
higher
the combination of stiffer spring [ less compression ] and longer
spring would
raise the car at least the 2" in front and probably more.
Jim
berry
======================================================
- -----
Original Message -----
From: "bob atkins" <
ratkins@cfl.rr.com>
> Stock spring rates are in the manual in the suspension section.
TEIN HA
> without a special order come with "12" and "8" springs front
and rear
> respectively. I did the calcs and they are nearly 3 times
the stiffness of
> stock - but JIC FLT-A2's show 14 and 9 - even stiffer -
for their stock VR-4
> setup.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:16:34 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: 20hp Mod question?
Here is a little more detailed explanation of how the boost control
solenoid
works with a different conclusion at the end regarding the
"restrictor mod".
For Mitsubishi's explanation with diagrams of how boost control works on
our
cars, please visit the following pages in the STIM.
The BC solenoid (like most solenoids) is either on or off. In this case
that
means it is either off, held closed by a spring and all air pressure
reaches
the wastegates, or open, some pressure (air) is bled off into the
intake hose
in front of the rear turbo. The factory boost control is just a
fancy bleeder
valve. When air is bled off, the wastegates "see" less
pressure than what is
in the plenum and so actual boost level is higher than
the 6 to 7 psi the
wastegates are designed to open at.
The percentage of time the solenoid is open (or powered or "on") during
some
period of engine operation is called the duty cycle. If the solenoid is
always
open then the duty cycle is 100%. Always closed is 0% duty cycle.
This is
similar to how fuel injector activation is measured. The ECU
controls the
opening and closing of the BC solenoid, comparing every 60
milliseconds the
volume air flow at the given engine RPM (called engine
volumetric efficiency)
to the target volume air flow stored in a "map". Two
maps are stored - one
for "regular" fuel and one for "premium" fuel. Heavy
knock or a malfunctioning
knock sensor forces the use of the "regular fuel"
map and maximum boost
pressure is reduced.
The solenoid does not just stay open until the target "pressure" (actually
engine volumetric efficiency because boost pressure is never measured) is
reached. The ECU changes the duty cycle with respect to engine RPM - opening
and closing the solenoid to bleed off some air. There is even a compensation
algorithm for varying atmospheric and engine operating conditions. The
factory
setup is not fast or smart enough to "snap open" the wastegates when
the
target pressure is reached and then to maintain that pressure.
Therefore, the
target level must be approached cautiously to avoid
overboosting by varying
the duty cycle. This same deficiency is seen is some
aftermarket electronic
boost controllers. Sport Compact Car ran an
interesting article earlier this
year comparing popular EBC's. Data logging
info is also in the article.
Removing the restrictor allows more air (and pressure) to be bled off for
each
duty cycle. My first thought was that this effectively allows for a
higher
maximum boost level at any given duty without having to re-program
the ECU.
However, the ECU is still comparing measured and target "pressures"
and
modulating the duty cycle accordingly. Now I am thinking that the ECU
must have
been reprogrammed for 1994+ years to increase the target
volumetric efficiency
(boost pressure). For 1991-1993 models, the
compensation routine should just
reduce the duty cycle when the target
"boost pressure" is reached.
Has anyone actually compared on a dyno (or even using a GTech) before and
after removing the restrictor on a factory-controlled setup?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:29:20 -0500
From: Bill Ma <
BillMa@FLAGCOMM.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Group buy for the lightest 18x9 wheel you're going to find for the
3/S
Hello to the list. My name is Bill and I've been lurking on this list for
a
while now and was previously on starnet list and this is my first
post.
Anyway anyone ever check out this site:
http://www.takakaira.com/ it's
a
Japanese based company that sells to the US market. I own a shop in
NY
called Visions Of Speed, visionsofspeed.net , and have an account with
these
people and may be able to get some good pricing on their products. I
hope
I'm not out of line by "spamming" the list.
Bill
- -----Original Message-----
From: Trevor James
[mailto:trevorlj@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 6:10 PM
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Group buy for the lightest 18x9 wheel you're going
to find for
the 3/S
You have to PM or e-mail Jay for prices.
Those of you thinking about buying may want to wait until next week. A
3Si
member is opening up a new shop specializing in hard to find Japanese
parts.
If his account with his Japanese distributor goes through we'll be
able to
get them cheaper than what the group buy is charging.
------------------------------
>From what I've heard, that sounds like the TC locking up!! Has
anyone
received any recall notices yet? If not, this is another reason
mitsu
should be moving a lot quicker!! Keep an eye on your fluid levels
guys!!
- -----Original Message-----
From: Rodriguez, Elpidio x35617d1
Sent:
Sunday, December 08, 2002 5:29 PM
Subject: Team3S: OT: Car Accident
Well, first of all I apologize for the slightly off topic post but
I
felt I should share the information with the group. It seems the
"car
meets mountain" bug is running around all of a sudden making me its
last
victim. Last Wednesday I lost control of my car, spun around a couple
of
time, crossed the median and slammed into a tree or rock on the
other
side. I haven't seen the car since I was unconscious until
the
paramedics helped me out. I was released from the hospital today with
a
broken shoulder blade, a broken rib, 2 more bruised ribs, a
lung
contusion, and a bruised pelvis. And this condition was
called
"miraculous" based on what my car supposedly looks like now. I guess
the
Man up above was really keeping an eye out for me and my passenger
(who
escaped unharmed) that night. I remember very little of the
accident
itself since everything happened so quick. One moment I'm passing a
car
the next I'm spinning out of control. This is what I do remember
though.
I was in 4th gear when I caught up to the car I was going to pass.
I
changed lanes and accelerated before shifting up to 5th. As soon as
I
released the clutch, I heard a loud grinding noise underneath the
car
and a split second later the entire rear end was spinning out of
control.
And that's all I remember until I was getting helped out of the car
by
the paramedics. Anyone ever hear of anything like this happening
before?
Well, hold of request on parts for now and I'll let you all know if
I'll
be parting this bad boy out or not. It's a '94 black Vr-4.
- -E.RDZ
------------------------------
I'm sure these would be cool to see, but in my corporate world, the IT
Nazis do not allow me admin rights to the pc, so I can't download the
appropriate video decompressor. Any suggestions from those who are not as
"information age - challenged" as me?
Chuck Willis
------------------------------
Sorry to hear of your accident and glad to hear you survived, even with
some damage. Your guardian angel was working overtime! Here's hoping for a
speedy recovery!
Chuck Willis
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:15:38 +0000
From:
mjannusch@attbi.comSubject: Re:
Team3S: 20hp Mod question?
> Removing the restrictor allows more air (and
> pressure) to be
bled off for each duty cycle.
> My first thought was that this
effectively
> allows for a higher maximum boost level at
> any given
duty without having to re-program
> the ECU. However, the ECU is
still comparing
> measured and target "pressures" and modulating
>
the duty cycle accordingly. Now I am thinking
> that the ECU must have
been reprogrammed for
> 1994+ years to increase the target
volumetric
> efficiency (boost pressure). For 1991-1993
> models,
the compensation routine should just
> reduce the duty cycle when the
target "boost
> pressure" is reached.
I did do this on a couple different 1st gen 3000GTs. On one of them
we didn't
have a boost gauge to compare before/after, but the owner reported
that the
car felt more responsive and a little stronger. On two others
we did have
boost gauges and removing the restriction ring from the solenoid
resulted in 2
psi more boost pressure on both cars. They never
reported to me that the
behavior went away or was inconsistent in any
way.
> However, the ECU is still comparing
> measured and target
"pressures" and modulating
> the duty cycle accordingly.
I have a little bit of a complaint with this statement. The ECU isn't
measuring intake pressure, but rather guessing at it based on mass airflow
calculations and RPMs (at least on '91-95 cars since there isn't an actual
manifold pressure sensor on those cars). This guesstimate is likely
just used
to determine the fuel cut threshold for overboost and not to
actively control
boost pressure itself.
> Has anyone actually compared on a dyno (or
> even using a GTech)
before and after
> removing the restrictor on a factory-controlled
>
setup?
Just seeing consistently more boost pressure should be enough to validate
the
theory. This has also proven itself out on the DSM cars, to which
our ECUs
are very closely related.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:40:03 -0800
From: "Gross, Erik" <
erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Wastegate solenoid clicking
Mine clicks when it's cold, too. It's not hooked up to anything
(both
nipples are capped), so I haven't yet bothered to figure out why it's
loud.
It goes away when the engine warms up. I'll probably end up
removing it
entirely and putting it in the box with all my other stock parts
that I
don't need unless I ever sell the car :-)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:45:35 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: 20hp Mod question?
>> The ECU isn't measuring intake pressure, but rather
>>
guessing at it based on mass airflow calculations
>> and RPMs (at least
on '91-95 cars since there isn't
>> an actual manifold pressure sensor
on those cars).
Yes, yes, I mention this explicitly several times in the post! Please note
that the word pressure was in quotes in my sentence. The STIM and "DSM" TIM
also recognize this. The MAP sensor on '96+ models is *only* used to verify
that the EGR system is working correctly. What a waste of a sensor!
We all (should) know that our ECU never measures actual plenum or manifold
pressure in any model (any year) for the purpose of reporting what the value
is or for use in any fuel-related function. I think I have belabored this
particular point in many posts ad nauseum. :)
Anyway, thanks for the feedback, Matt. As I said, my first thought was that
removing the restrictor should increase boost pressure, as many folks
report.
But Mitsu's documentation suggests that it might not and butt dynos
are
particularly unreliable.
I think the STIM should be used as an idea of what Mitsu did or wanted to
do
and not as absolute gospel. I have seen discrepancies in the STIM
concerning,
for example, ECU terminal assignments and (my favorite) torque
distribution by
the CD/VCU.
The actual truth may be that no "comparator" actually exists (that is,
there
is no feedback loop) and that boost control solenoid duty cycle is
determined
solely on internal "maps" (similar to injector duty cycle for WOT
operation)
and detonation level (boost is reduced when many knock counts
occur). This
would explain why max boost varies between cars and in the same
car as the
weather changes, even though the ECU appears smart enough to
recognize when
air is denser or thinner because of altitude or
temperature.
Ahhhh, the reason most of use opt for real (aftermarket) boost control
instead
of the POS system Mitsu gave us. :) I mean, how can they effectively
control
boost when they never measure the actual pressure? As Matt said,
Mitsu's ECU
is just guessing.
------------------------------
Now Campaign number 02V143001 lists corrective action! There is even
a telephone number if you don't get satisfactory remediation.
I believe the transfer case seals were already replaced by the Clutch Shop
when they replaced the clutch on one of my VR4's.
Chuck Willis
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:10:31 -0600
From: "John M. Hughes" <
hughesjohn@mac.com>
Subject: Team3S:
Transfer case recall
I received a notice from the Department of Transportation on Friday
informing me that there is a recall on my 93 rt/tt transfer case. If
there is leaking oil, they will replace it. If not, they will change
the
oil without cost.
------------------------------
Thanks, Chuck
Mine has been leaking like a sieve for three years. It was
a brand new tranny, and Mitsu refused to do any more for it.
Rich
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:18:12 +0000
From:
mjannusch@attbi.comSubject: Re:
Team3S: 20hp Mod question?
> The MAP sensor on '96+ models is *only* used
> to verify that
the EGR system is working
> correctly. What a waste of a sensor!
Agreed on that point for sure. If they were going to put on a MAP
sensor,
they could've at least allowed it to help with "real" boost control
and used
it to work more like an aftermarket "intelligent" boost controller
- but no.
Better yet, they could've allowed user modification of a
boost targets table
in the OBD-II ECU so it could actually control boost in
a meaningful way and
actually add value and performance to the car.
Another 30 HP wouldn't have
hurt sales any. ;-)
> But Mitsu's documentation suggests that it
> might not and butt
dynos are particularly
> unreliable.
Heh, I think if anything, the documentation should be taken with a grain of
salt. It sometimes makes the technology in the car appear more magical
than
it really is. :-)
> The actual truth may be that no "comparator"
> actually exists
(that is, there is no feedback
> loop) and that boost control solenoid
duty
> cycle is determined solely on internal "maps"
> (similar to
injector duty cycle for WOT
> operation) and detonation level (boost
is
> reduced when many knock counts occur).
I would go along with that. I doubt that the ECU is intelligent
enough to
actively control boost beyond its pre-programmed
counter-productive attempts
to "smooth" the boost response to make the car
feel more muscle car-like (with
a flatter power curve) than the more
aggressive feel that it gets with an
aftermarket controller.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
------------------------------
Even my Mitsu dealer in the sticks has been notified. They said wait
for a card in the mail, but I won't wait for long ...
- -----Original Message-----
From:
merritt@cedar-rapids.net
[mailto:merritt@cedar-rapids.net]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:14
PM
Subject: Re: Team3S: Transfer case recall update
Thanks, Chuck
Mine has been leaking like a sieve for three years. It was
a brand new tranny, and Mitsu refused to do any more for it.
Rich
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:31:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Roger Ludwig <
yiotta@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Transfer case recall update
Does the recall effect the 91-93 years only?
I think that is what I had
read previously.
Roger L
F15DOC
- --- "Willis, Charles E."
<
cewillis@TexasChildrensHospital.org>
wrote:
> Even my Mitsu dealer in the sticks has been
>
notified. They said wait for a card in the mail,
> but I won't wait
for long ...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
merritt@cedar-rapids.net>
[mailto:merritt@cedar-rapids.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:14
PM
> To: Willis, Charles E.; Team3S
> Subject: Re: Team3S: Transfer
case recall update
>
>
> Thanks, Chuck
> Mine has been
leaking like a sieve for three years.
> It was a brand new tranny, and
Mitsu refused to do
> any more for it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:36:43 -0500
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Transfer case recall update
Roger the information I have seen thus far is that the 91-93's have
priority
(due to the nature of them locking up without warning) However
the 94+ cars
seem to make a $hit load of noise before locking up (giving the
driver time
to slow down/pull over) before you end up in a flat spin (been
there done
that, not fun)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Roger Ludwig
[mailto:yiotta@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 2:31 PM
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Transfer case recall update
Does the recall effect the 91-93 years only?
I think that is what I had
read previously.
Roger L
F15DOC
------------------------------
The NHTSA site says ALL years are affected by the recall, 91-99.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Furman, Russell
[mailto:RFurman2@MassMutual.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:37
PM
Subject: RE: Team3S: Transfer case recall update
Roger the information I have seen thus far is that the 91-93's have
priority
(due to the nature of them locking up without warning) However
the 94+ cars
seem to make a $hit load of noise before locking up (giving the
driver time
to slow down/pull over) before you end up in a flat spin (been
there done
that, not fun)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Roger Ludwig
[mailto:yiotta@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 2:31 PM
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Transfer case recall update
Does the recall effect the 91-93 years only?
I think that is what I
had read previously.
Roger L
F15DOC
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:40:04 -0800
From: "dakken" <
dougusmagnus@attbi.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: OT: Car Accident
This is what I do remember though. I was in 4th gear when
I caught up to
the car I was going to pass. I changed lanes
and accelerated before shifting
up to 5th. As soon as I
released the clutch, I heard a loud grinding noise
underneath
the car and a split second later the entire rear end
was
spinning out of control. And that's all I remember until I
was
getting helped out of the car by the paramedics.
Sorry to hear about your misfortune.
I concur with what everyone else has said about the transfer case. I
will
just add that another cause could be your rear differential. Many
other
list members have had trouble with the rear differential and I recall
seeing
posted pics of one rear differential that had square bearings inside
of it.
Have a speedy recovery.
Doug
92 Stealth RT TT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:42:04 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Transfer case recall update
The NHTSA web site states that all the dealer is going to do is check if
the
TC is leaking. If not, they will change the oil. If leaking the first
remedy
is to "reseal" it. Then if that does not work they have the *option*
of
replacing it (presumably with the same crap they sold us the first time).
Duh!
I would not let a dealer even touch my TC for fear that their stupidity
mojo
would transfer to my car. There is no chance in hell I would let one
"reseal"
it!
Now if Mitsu wants to offer us a ***better*** transfer case, I am all for
that. I would even pay for it! Until then, I will replace the seals myself
if
mine (10 years old) ever starts leaking.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Willis, Charles E." <
cewillis@TexasChildrensHospital.org>
Sent:
Monday, December 09, 2002 11:49 AM
Subject: Team3S: Transfer case recall
update
Now Campaign number 02V143001 lists corrective action! There is even
a
telephone number if you don't get satisfactory
remediation.
<snip>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:58:07 +0000
From:
nouveau3@attbi.comSubject: Re: Team3S:
Transfer case recall update
I'm with Jeff. My '92 does not leak at all and until they offer something a
little more extensive than basically an inspection, I'll keep an eye on it
myself.
> The NHTSA web site states that all the dealer is going to do is check
if the
> TC is leaking. If not, they will change the oil. If leaking the
first remedy
> is to "reseal" it. Then if that does not work they have
the *option* of
> replacing it (presumably with the same crap they sold
us the first time).
>
> Duh!
>
> I would not let a
dealer even touch my TC for fear that their stupidity mojo
> would
transfer to my car. There is no chance in hell I would let one "reseal"
>
it!
>
> Now if Mitsu wants to offer us a ***better*** transfer
case, I am all for
> that. I would even pay for it! Until then, I will
replace the seals myself if
> mine (10 years old) ever starts
leaking.
>
> Jeff Lucius,
http://www.stealth316.com/
------------------------------
End of Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth V2
#20
**************************************
