Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth Saturday, March 15
2003 Volume 02 : Number 104
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:26:57 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Fuel Pressure
19 mm/hg? I assume you mean 19 in Hg, which would be 482 mm Hg or 9.33 psi.
19 mm Hg vacuum (~0.37 psi) is close to atmospheric pressure and would be an
extremely poor idle vacuum. :) My handy unit converter web page can help
with pressure unit conversions.
Yes, the FPR regulates the fuel pressure on our return-line fuel systems.
If base pressure without vacuum line attached is 38 psi, it should be ~28-29 psi
with vacuum line attached if you get ~19 in Hg vacuum at idle (38 psi - 9.33
psi). This assumes the FPR responds linearly to vacuum and pressure. With 10 psi
of boost, the FPR would read ~48 psi (38 + 10). In all cases, vacuum or boost,
there should always be ~38 psi pressure differential across the injector. With
this constant pressure differential across the injector, the injector flow rate
(say nnn cc/min) is a constant. The ECU depends on this when determining
injector activation time. More about that on my web page below.
On our turbo models, base fuel line pressure is about 43 psi. At idle my
engine pulls only 385 mm Hg (or 15 in Hg or 7.44 psi) here at 5500 ft ASL, where
normal atmospheric pressure is only 12 psi. My idle fuel pressure was, before
re-wiring my Supra pump, ~35-36 psi (43 - 7.44).
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "cody" <
overclck@satx.rr.com>
Sent:
Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:04 PM
This is regarding my '91 Talon, but it works the same as the
3000's...
Fuel pressure base (without any vacuum lines connected) should be 38 psi on
the Talon. Now, the statement - it should rise 1 psi fuel pressure for
every 1 psi of boost, correct? If it doesn't, and I know it's not the fuel
filter or pump (at least very low possibility as they are both brand new
aftermarket units), then it is most likely the regulator, correct?
Now, one other question, and I have no clue as to the answer... With
the car idling normally, at about 19 mm/hg vacuum, what should fuel pressure
be? Should it be the base fuel pressure, or should it be base fuel
pressure -19???
BTW - I just bought the Nordskog Digital Fuel Pressure gauge with peak and
low memory, very nice setup, fairly easy to install, and will work with VR4's as
well... Cost about $120 from Summit Racing... (install consisted of
some creative thinking - I drilled a hole in the center of the banjo bolt
fitting, tapped it to 1/8 NPT, and installed a 1/8 to 1/4 NPT adapter, then the
sender screwed right into that... I took the idea from the fuel pressure
warning unit that came with my Nitrous kit for my non-turbo 3000)
- -Cody
------------------------------
I have a manual boost controller on my '93 VR4 and a DSBC on my '94
VR4. I'm not talking about set point variation with temperature or
humidity. I have <always> operated the manual boost controller at 12 psi
instead of 14.7 psi out of fear for boost spikes. I think that boost
spikes are a reality with manual boost controllers and are lessened or
eliminated by dSBC.
Chuck
BTW Cody, I respect your first amendment rights! This list needs more
participation and less lurking.
- -----Original Message-----
From: cody
[mailto:overclck@satx.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:36 PM
You should consider a boost controller and real boost gauge. DSBC's
are safer than manual BC's
I hate to rain on your parade, but this is not true at all. Unless
there are other Manual BC's out there that don't work like mine, I've had mine
set for two months, here in San Antonio, it's 80 today, but 3 weeks ago, it was
35 degrees. Today it was humid, yesterday it was dry. It stays rock solid
at whatever boost setting I have it at, and it's much easier for ANYONE to
setup. No duty cycles, no blah blah blah, turn one knob, one direction for
more boost, the opposite direction for less boost... It's so easy, and so
fool proof. The only PITA is that you have to get out of the car to change
the boost setting, but if you're like me, on a turbo car it's best to tune for
one boost setting and leave it there. The less you play with it the better
off you are...
- -Cody
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:58:26 -0600
From: "Patrick Purviance" <
purdaddy@associatedsys.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Basic Performance Modifications
> I have a manual boost controller on my '93 VR4 and a DSBC on my
'94
> VR4. I'm not talking about set point variation with
temperature or
> humidity. I have <always> operated the manual
boost controller at 12
> psi instead of 14.7 psi out of fear for boost
spikes. I think that
> boost spikes are a reality with manual boost
controllers and are
> lessened or eliminated by DSBC.
>
>
Chuck
>
> BTW Cody, I respect your first amendment rights!
This list needs more
> participation and less lurking.
Ok, so Chuck's put in his thoughts on the pro's/con's, but how does the
rest of the list feel about MBC's vs. EBC's? Since Chuck has used both, I
appreciate his experience speaking, personally. But I'd also like to hear
from everyone else's experience on the list, to have a better understanding of
why the $200-500 EBC is better than the $20-50 MBC. Seems many have been
using a specific MBC (which will remain nameless for now) with no spiking or
problems whatsoever (so they say), so I've gone that route for cost savings to
put into other areas of the car.
I mean, if they both make the 14-15 psi I want and are consistent, does it
make a difference?
Thanks again guys/gals,
-Patrick
Patrick Purviance
'94 Stealth R/T TT, 59k miles, Open Air Intake, 1g DSM
BOV, Blitz DATT, XxxXXX MBC on it's way in ;) Wichita, KS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:59:54 -0500
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: EBC VS MBC
Folks I hate to break it you to certain designs of both EBC's and MBC's are
prone to spiking. In my experience I have found the ball and spring
designs are least prone to spiking MBC and that thus far the DSBC is the
"safest" EBC on the market due to its over boost warning/limiter function.
------------------------------
Who can recommend a good supplier of the ball & spring type MBC.
I would rather buy of the net (and pay extra for a kit) the deal with the rat
race in the Springs.
Thanks
Dan
- -----Original Message-----
From: Furman, Russell
[mailto:RFurman2@MassMutual.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:00 AM
Folks I hate to break it you to certain designs of both EBC's and MBC's are
prone to spiking. In my experience I have found the ball and spring
designs are least prone to spiking MBC and that thus far the DSBC is the
"safest" EBC on the market due to its over boost warning/limiter function.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:33:49 -0500
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: EBC VS MBC
My personal preference is for the "Joe P" MBC when going the ball and
spring design. I am using the MBC for the street boost setting on my car
(1.2KG) and then either an EVC V or AVCR for the high street (1.65KG) and race
boost settings (2.10KG)
Of course I will probably sell mine if I can ever find a place that sell
actuators where you can specify the "actuator default boost pressure"
Russ F
CT
- -----Original Message-----
From: Labonte, Dan
[mailto:DLabonte@SturmanIndustries.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 11:21
AM
Who can recommend a good supplier of the ball & spring type MBC.
I would rather buy of the net (and pay extra for a kit) the deal with the rat
race in the Springs.
------------------------------
> Who can recommend a good supplier of the ball & spring type
MBC. I
> would rather buy of the net (and pay extra for a kit) the
deal with
> the rat race in the Springs.
Ok, so even though I said I wasn't going to say which one...... I just
purchased mine from a guy running a post on the 3si Parts For Sale forum.
From the testimonials there (again, just what others are saying) the PRO Boost
MBC is rock steady and better than the one available from boostvalve.com.
I used a JoeP in my Talon for a couple of years with absolutely no
problems. And this one looks to be about the same with some very good
design. So I went with it.
Again, I'm not saying this is best. I'm not an expert. I'm here
to learn and offer what experience I have (if that's worth anything). I
won't know if this is a good controller until after I've had it a while.
Hope it helps,
-Patrick
Patrick Purviance
'94 Stealth R/T TT, 57k miles, Open Air Intake, 1g DSM
BOV, Blitz DATT, Pro Boost MBC on it's way in ;) Wichita, KS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:45:17 -0800
From: "Gross, Erik" <
erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Basic Performance Modifications
> Ok, so Chuck's put in his thoughts on the pro's/con's, but how does
> the rest of the list feel about MBC's vs. EBC's?
Sport Compact Car magazine had a great article on this a while back - (mid
last year?) They compared several different boost controllers including
EBCs and MBCs on a DSM (Eclipse?) with a big turbo (20G?) that exhibited boost
creep and had the capability to spike quite a bit. They had graphs of
boost over time with two different scenarios: 1) flooring it from low
RPM
(2000?) and 2) flooring it in the power band (4500RPM?) where there was
the most chance of spiking.
IIRC, the EBCs outperformed the MBC in just about everything except boost
response. By nature of its construction and operation (holding the
wastegates completely closed until target boost is attained), MBCs are the
standard for boost response. Several EBCs approached this standard for
boost response. The MBC exhibited significant spiking and ringing
(decreasing amplitude oscillations around the target boost associated with slow
feedback response) in the high-RPM-floor-it scenario, while most of the EBCs
didn't. Some EBCs were confused by the Eclipse's boost creep, but that
shouldn't be a problem for us - definitely not with the stock hair dryers
:-) BTW, That's all from memory, so don't shoot me if some numbers I
quoted are a little off - the gist of it is correct, though.
I've used two different EBCs and an MBC on my VR-4 and just recently set up
a third type of EBC on a friend's VR-4. Another friend with a MBC and an
AEM (with datalogging) said that he gets 1-2psi spikes above his target boost
with a MBC. He is now running close-loop electronic boost control via the
AEM for multiple reasons, one of which is probably the spiking. Also,
before he got an AEM with data logging, he used to say that he had no
appreciable spiking at all with his MBC - based on reading his Autometer
mechanical boost gauge. Now that he has the AEM and a real MAP sensor, he
can see that he actually is getting spiking with an MBC.
IMHO, if the cost is not prohibitive, EBCs are the better choice to
maximize performance (steady-state boost and boost response) in a turbo car
while minimizing spiking above the target boost. You can get close with a
properly tuned MBC, but I haven't ever seen a MBC graph that doesn't spike or
ring when floored in the power band.
Out of the EBCs I've used, I like them in this order: Blitz DSBC, HKS
EVC IV, GReddy Profec A. The GReddy was too "hands off" for me - it had
vague instructions and didn't really tell you what it was doing. The HKS
EVC IV's user interface could use some improvement - you have to recalibrate the
dang knobs all the time, which is really annoying. The HKS also seemed to
"learn" better and quicker than the GReddy, AND the HKS allows you to watch what
it's doing as it learns.
Oh yeah, and on my car, an MBC (one of the "good ones" mentioned) will
result in an 0.2kg (~3psi) boost spike, which, to me, is unacceptable. That's
one of the reasons why I still have my EBC (Blitz DSBC).
OK, there's my 2hp :-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:37:27 -0800
From: "Geddes, Brian J" <
brian.j.geddes@intel.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Basic Performance Modifications
Didn't we have this discussion a few weeks ago? :)
Mine is the AEM car mentioned below. I actually see worse spiking
with the closed loop boost control than I did with the ball-and-spring
MBC. Granted, I haven't put much effort into tuning my AEM boost control,
so it's performance could probably be improved. I was very, very happy
with my MBC. The only reason I switched to the AEM's closed loop was so
that I could easily switch boost targets without messing with the spring.
In my opinion an EBC offers no performance advantage over a good MBC.
I do not think a transient spike of 2-3 PSI is any problem whatsoever.
Sustained high boost is of course dangerous, but a half-second 2-3 PSI above
your target isn't going to blow your engine. In my data logging thus far,
I've never had knock problems in transient spikes.
A good MBC will give you faster spoolup than and EBC, and after the spike
will hold very steady boost. On my logs of the MBC, once the spike settled
the MBC held boost +/- .1 PSI. Additionally an MBC is a far simpler
system, and thus has fewer ways to fail. I think the only advantage an EBC
offers is a quick-switch between boost settings. To me, that's not worth
$300-$400. To others, it might be.
- - Brian
> I've used two different EBCs and an MBC on my
VR-4 and just recently
> set up a third type of EBC on a friend's
VR-4. Another friend with a
> MBC and an AEM (with datalogging)
said that he gets 1-2psi spikes
> above his target boost with a
MBC. He is now running close-loop
> electronic boost control via
the AEM for multiple reasons, one of
> which is probably the
spiking. Also, before he got an AEM with data
> logging, he used to
say that he had no appreciable spiking at all with
> his MBC - based on
reading his Autometer mechanical boost gauge. Now
> that he has the
AEM and a real MAP sensor, he can see that he actually
> is getting
spiking with an MBC.
------------------------------
- -----Original Message-----
From: Gross, Erik
[mailto:erik.gross@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 11:45 AM
> Ok, so Chuck's put in his thoughts on the pro's/con's, but
> how
does the rest of the list feel about MBC's vs. EBC's?
*** Thanks, Eric!
> Out of the EBCs I've used, I like them in this order:
> Blitz
DSBC, HKS EVC IV, GReddy Profec A. The Greddy
> was too "hands off"
for me - it had vague
> instructions and didn't really tell you what it
was doing.
*** I have a GReddy (Profec B, I think) and I like it specifically because
it is hands off. My son has a Blitz which he really likes.
> Oh yeah, and on my car, an MBC (one of the "good ones"
>
mentioned) will result in an 0.2kg (~3psi) boost spike, which, to me,
>
is unacceptable.
*** Hence, the setting of 12 psi on my MBC, because I don't want boost
pressures above 15 psi with my stock injectors and fuel pressure.
Chuck Willis
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:00:18 -0800
From: "Gross, Erik" <
erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Transient Boost Spikes: Ok or Not?
I'm interested in what people have to say about boost spiking and how it
will or won't affect your engine. Specifically, I'm talking about the type
of spiking you see with MBCs, where the boost will overshoot the target by
1-3psi for 0.5 seconds or so. Is that really something to be concerned
with or not?
A stock-3/S-TT-specific people might want to comment on:
If you have your boost target set to 14psi (example), then any spiking
above that would not occur in the high-RPM range (turbo flow capacity), so these
spikes to 15-17psi would occur between 2500 and ~5000RPM, where the stock fuel
system "should" be able to provide enough fuel. If that is the case
(adequate fuel is guaranteed to be available), and the boost spike lasts for
only a handful of combustion events, do things really have time to heat up or
cause detonation problems?
The only thing I can think of is that if you were on a road course where
temps are really high and you're doing a lot of throttle modulation (spikes
would happen often), that under those circumstances, spiking might be able to
cause damage.
As for people with larger turbos that can spike to 17+psi at high RPM, I'd
hope that they already have larger injectors and fuel management to make sure
they can support higher boost at higher RPM. In that case, I'd think the
above still applies - that small boost spiking(1-3psi), unless repeated under
high-stress conditions, wouldn't be all that dangerous to the engine.
Thoughts?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:22:32 +0000
From:
mjannusch@attbi.comSubject: Re:
Team3S: Transient Boost Spikes: Ok or Not?
I personally don't think it is much to be concerned about. As long as
you
aren't getting knock during the spikes, and like you said - have enough
fuel,
there's really nothing to worry about.
I'd be a lot more worried about boost creep than boost spikes.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
------------------------------
Okay, so say I have set my MSB at 15 psi and I get an overboost spike of 3
psi at 6000 rpm for 0.5 seconds. At 6000 rpm that is 50 firings of each
cylinder at 18 psi. Can my stock fuel system keep the fuel air ratio up
for those 50 firings? If not, can 50 lean firings burn a hole in a
piston? It gets six chances.
I really think it's safer to maintain a fat margin of error when using an
MSB.
Chuck Willis
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:49:11 +0000
From:
mjannusch@attbi.comSubject: RE:
Team3S: Transient Boost Spikes: Ok or Not?
25 firings of each cylinder. There's only combustible charge every
two crank
revolutions, but who's counting? ;-)
In the time of 50 crank revolutions at 6000 RPM I doubt that a little extra
heat in the chamber is going to cause catastrophic knock. Certainly
not
enough to burn a hole in a piston.
Its your car, you need to determine what risks are acceptable and which
aren't. If you don't feel that a little spike is okay, that's
fine. The only
way to know for sure is to use a logger of some sort to
determine if knock
occurs during the spike or not.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
------------------------------
Dropped by my local speed shop this morning, to arrange getting my motor
mounts put in, and I found a couple of bargains that some of you might want to
scoop up:
1991 VR4 with a dreadful red, white, and blue "flag" paint job and a blown
motor, $2500. I drag raced against this car once after he first got it, so I
know it usta run just fine until he ran a smidge too much NOS. I think he was
running in the elevens at the time. The motor is in pieces right now. It'd
make a great track car, cuz it already has a hideous paint job.
1992 NA motor, 30,000 miles, $1200.
He also has zillions of blocks and heads laying around.
Say, you could put the NA motor in the VR4 and have the first nonturbo
AWD...nah, forget I said that.
I don't get a cut on any of this, by the way. The guy is my tuner. I
suspect that if one of you purchased the motor or the VR4 he might find a few
more horsepower for me, but that's it. Besides, it always helps to do nice
things for your tuner.
For details on either the VR4 or the NA motor, call:
Rich/slow old poop
------------------------------
Duh! 25 not 50! (:<)
You are also right that the only way to know for sure is to monitor it with
a logger for knock during the spikes.
BUT ...
I believe people who are looking for a safe, cheap performance upgrades
often wonder why we suggest that they get a REAL boost gauge. Unless they
are will to put some extra bucks into a logger, I think it is better to
recommend a wide safety margin with an MSB.
Also, I don't think there is really much distinction here between track use
and street use - people want the extra boost so they can shut somebody
down. In the city or on the highway, as long as the engine is at operating
temperature, I think brief lean operation during overboost spikes is equally
risky.
Chuck
- -----Original Message-----
25 firings of each cylinder. There's
only combustible charge every two crank
revolutions, but who's
counting? ;-)
In the time of 50 crank revolutions at 6000 RPM I doubt that a little extra
heat in the chamber is going to cause catastrophic knock. Certainly
not
enough to burn a hole in a piston.
Its your car, you need to determine what risks are acceptable and which
aren't. If you don't feel that a little spike is okay, that's
fine. The only
way to know for sure is to use a logger of some sort to
determine if knock
occurs during the spike or not.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:16:54 -0800
From: "Gross, Erik" <
erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Transient Boost Spikes: Ok or Not?
Chuck wrote:
> At 6000 rpm that is 50 firings of each cylinder at 18
psi. Can
> my stock fuel system keep the fuel air ratio up for those
50
> firings? If not, can 50 lean firings burn a hole in a
>
piston?
I think you missed a couple of my points:
1) You won't hit 18psi at 6000RPM on a stock car (or at least not
that
I've ever seen). You might hit 18psi in the 4500RPM-5000RPM range,
but yeah, that's still 38 firings per second.
2) More importantly, I think your stock (fuel/turbos) engine should
be
able to handle the fuel demands of 18psi at 5000RPM. If we know that
10psi is ok on a properly-running stock fuel system at 7000RPM, then I think the
following would hold true: At 7000RPM, let's say that your IDC is 100% at
10psi. At 5000RPM and 10psi, neglecting VE changes, your IDC would be
about 72%. If airflow is roughly proportional to manifold pressure
(14.5psi + boost), then you could run 38% (28/72) more total pressure 5000RPM
before you hit 100% IDC. That would mean that you could run 20.5 psi of
boost (35psi MAP) at 5000RPM and still be ok (fuel-wise).
My point is that you shouldn't run lean at 5000RPM and 18psi on the stock
fuel system, so the lean firings you mentioned shouldn't exist. If you're
not running lean, then as I understand it, temperatures are the next thing you
worry about, but over the course of 0.5sec and only overshooting boost by
1-3psi, I doubt the temp increases are all that much...
Granted all that in #2 is grossly approximating and I think the 10psi is
conservative, but those numbers should be close... I think :-)
------------------------------
Is it true that a 1st gen ECU will fit in a 2nd gen?
That the only real
differences are:
- --the 1st gen uses only one O2 sensor
- --the 1st gen
has data logging capability and the 2nd gen does not
If this is all true, would it not make sense for 2nd gen cars to run a 1st
gen ECU? Who needs a 2nd O2 sensor anyway? Would it not be far, far better to be
able to datalog instead?
While we're on this topic, what do we need O2 sensors for anyway? Specially
in a race vehicle? As I understand things, if the ECU does not get an O2 signal
when it's looking for one, it flashes a Check Engine light and runs off its
internal maps. The motor still runs fine, it just doesn't pass emission tests or
doesn't get good gas mileage around town or something. Is that substantially
correct, or what?
Rich/slow old poop/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:22:14 -0800
From: "Geddes, Brian J" <
brian.j.geddes@intel.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Transient Boost Spikes: Ok or Not?
You won't get a spike of 3 PSI at 6000 RPMs. The stock turbos just
can't provide enough air. :)
On larger, slower spooling turbos that can provide high boost and high
RPMs, it seems to me that spiking should be lower because of the increased spool
time. Anybody have any experience with this?
> Okay, so say I have set my MSB at 15 psi and I get an
>
overboost spike of 3 psi at 6000 rpm for 0.5 seconds. At
> 6000 rpm
that is 50 firings of each cylinder at 18 psi. Can
> my stock fuel
system keep the fuel air ratio up for those 50
> firings? If not,
can 50 lean firings burn a hole in a
> piston? It gets six
chances.
>
> I really think it's safer to maintain a fat margin of
error
> when using an MSB.
>
> Chuck Willis
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:15:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Geoff Mohler <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Who needs O2 sensors anyway?
Without O2 sensors, you cant really run a computer controlled car with the
level of adjustability you require.
its a real-time tuning tool.
Race cars that don't have em..tune for a very narrow band of performance
IMHO
> Is it true that a 1st gen ECU will fit in a 2nd gen?
> That the
only real differences are:
> --the 1st gen uses only one O2 sensor
>
--the 1st gen has data logging capability and the 2nd gen does not
>
> If this is all true, would it not make sense for 2nd gen cars to run a
> 1st gen ECU? Who needs a 2nd O2 sensor anyway? Would it not be far, far
better to be able to datalog instead?
>
> While we're on this
topic, what do we need O2 sensors for anyway?
> Specially in a race
vehicle? As I understand things, if the ECU does
> not get an O2 signal
when it's looking for one, it flashes a Check
> Engine light and runs off
its internal maps. The motor still runs
> fine, it just doesn't pass
emission tests or doesn't get good gas
> mileage around town or
something. Is that substantially correct, or
> what?
------------------------------
You have far exceeded my limited knowledge, so I'll do some studying of
Jeff Lucius air/fuel flow calculators before shooting my mouth off again,
however I will say that an assumption of 100% IDC is probably wrong. According
to Jeff's site, "industry recommends 80% IDC" which I'm guessing is the max
Mitsubishi wanted (10 psi boost at 5000rpm?). Jeff says 90% IDC for brief
periods is "probably acceptable".
Cool discussion in any event. Got my homework.
Chuck Willis
"Granted all that in #2 is grossly approximating and I think the 10psi is
conservative, but those numbers should be close... I think :-)"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:39:45 -0500
From: "Tim" <
tim@onlineracing.tv>
Subject:
Team3S: 91 Stealth Dealer Response
I complained to the BBB on the dealership. The dealer had recommended
I change the oil sending unit. They wanted $250 & the sending unit
only tells the gauge what to display. It does not have any impact on
actual internal pressure.
Anyway, their response to the BBB was
Customer advised vehicle has low
oil pressure & declined further diagnostic procedures or repairs concerning
oil pressure. Note: The vehicle has 107,596 miles on the odometer.
Unreal.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:13:46 -0800
From: "Gross, Erik" <
erik.gross@intel.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: 91 Stealth Dealer Response
> I complained to the BBB on the dealership. The dealer
had
> recommended I change the oil sending unit. They wanted
$250
> & the sending unit only tells the gauge what to
display.
> It does not have any impact on actual internal
pressure.
>
> Anyway, their response to the BBB was Customer
advised
> vehicle has low oil pressure & declined further
diagnostic
> procedures or repairs concerning oil pressure. Note:
The
> vehicle has 107,596 miles on the odometer.
Um.... ask them to show you bearing damage. If your
bearings are
ok and you have bent valves, then they have no case. Low
oil pressure (if it didn't cause something to seize) would not be able to bend
valves or result in loss of compression in a sudden manner. Make sure you
get a written copy of the dealer's response to the BBB. Assuming you don't
have any bearing damage, they'll get to chew on those words for a while and
they'll look even more like they're trying to pull the wool over everyone's
eyes.
Also, you're right - if you DID actually have low oil pressure
(they would have to verify with a real gauge, not the stock POS), then changing
the sending unit would definitely not correct the problem. Then you'd have
them for failing to identify a proper solution to the problem. If they
said that changing the sending unit out was a "diagnostic service" to identify
the problem, then ask them how they planned to "read" the gauge, since anyone
who has actually hooked up a REAL gauge to the car would know that the stock
gauge is about as accurate as the check engine light telling you your fuel
pressure.
- --Erik
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:18:47 -0600
From: "Dan Hyde" <
danielhyde@attbi.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Routine Maintenance & "Goo" in the Intake Manifold
I am in the middle of some routine maintenance - replacing fuel filter,
Spark plugs, inspecting vacuum lines, etc.
After pulling the Plenum off I was I surprised at the amount of black,
tar-like build up in the intake manifold. It was well above the injector
openings. I spent the last hour painstakingly swabbing each inlet clean
using Kleen-Strip Prep-All Wax & Grease Remover and paper towels. I
use this stuff to clean old wax off paint and it dissolves this goop in short
order.
While I have everything pulled apart - does anyone know of other things I
should be doing before I put things back together (I probably should have asked
this question yesterday)
I've got a couple TEC strut bars to install yet so I'll be working on this
for awhile this evening.
Thanks
Dan
97 VR4
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:14:28 -0600
From: "cody" <
overclck@satx.rr.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: EBC VS MBC
JoeP all the way... The absolute best MBC available... Cheap
too... He even has a electronic version of the same thing (basically a motorized
MBC with a separate controller)
- -Cody
- -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Purviance
Sent: Friday,
March 14, 2003 10:52 AM
> Who can recommend a good supplier of the ball & spring type
MBC. I
> would rather buy of the net (and pay extra for a kit) the
deal with
> the rat race in the Springs.
Ok, so even though I said I wasn't going to say which one...... I just
purchased mine from a guy running a post on the 3si Parts For Saleforum.
From the testimonials there (again, just what others are saying) the PRO Boost
MBC is rock steady and better than the one available from boostvalve.com.
I used a JoeP in my Talon for a couple of years with absolutely no
problems. And this one looks to be about the same with some very good
design. So I went with it.
Again, I'm not saying this is best. I'm not an expert. I'm here
to learn and offer what experience I have (if that's worth anything). I won't
know if this is a good controller until after I've had it a while.
Hope it helps,
-Patrick
Patrick Purviance
'94 Stealth R/T TT, 57k miles, Open Air Intake, 1g DSM
BOV, Blitz DATT, Pro Boost MBC on it's way in ;) Wichita, KS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:17:58 -0600
From: "cody" <
overclck@satx.rr.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Fuel Pressure
Thanks for the response Jeff... I forgot the units on the vacuum
side, but yes, I did mean 19 in Hg. Ok, so, it sounds like my FPR is
screwed up.. Guess it's a good time to upgrade... (reads 46 psi at
14 psi boost, no wonder I had the AFC with 550's turned way up at
boost
levels..)
- -Cody
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lucius
Sent: Friday, March
14, 2003 8:27 AM
19 mm/hg? I assume you mean 19 in Hg, which would be 482 mm Hg or 9.33 psi.
19 mm Hg vacuum (~0.37 psi) is close to atmospheric pressure and would be an
extremely poor idle vacuum. :) My handy unit converter web page can help
with pressure unit conversions.
Yes, the FPR regulates the fuel pressure on our return-line fuel systems.
If base pressure without vacuum line attached is 38 psi, it should be ~28-29 psi
with vacuum line attached if you get ~19 in Hg vacuum at idle (38 psi - 9.33
psi). This assumes the FPR responds linearly to vacuum and pressure. With 10 psi
of boost, the FPR would read ~48 psi (38 + 10). In all cases, vacuum or boost,
there should always be ~38 psi pressure differential across the injector. With
this constant pressure differential across the injector, the injector flow rate
(say nnn cc/min) is a constant. The ECU depends on this when determining
injector activation time. More about that on my web page below.
On our turbo models, base fuel line pressure is about 43 psi. At idle my
engine pulls only 385 mm Hg (or 15 in Hg or 7.44 psi) here at 5500 ft ASL, where
normal atmospheric pressure is only 12 psi. My idle fuel pressure was, before
re-wiring my Supra pump, ~35-36 psi (43 - 7.44).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:47:40 -0500
From: "David Thrower" <
repairerr@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Who needs O2 sensors anyway?
My First Gen R/T TT has two O2 sensors!? And I discovered today that
I am running "RICH", gas in crankcase. Maybe one of mine are bad. Or maybe I
have a leaky injector. They are all original with 129,700 MI. on
them! Dave Thrower 92 Stealth R/T TT
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:53:34 -0500
From: "David Thrower" <
repairerr@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Who needs O2 sensors anyway?
Or It could be that I have Idled the engine alot the last few weeks, since
I just "rolled" new rod and main bearings in it last month.? Did some real short
trips with light load in cold weather too? Dave Thrower
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:47:38 EST
From:
M3000GTSL84@aol.comSubject: Team3S:
1/4 mile preparation Q
Today I ran my first 1/4 mile in my 3000GT. It was a blast. The car,
however,
didn't perform the way I had hoped.
What tire pressure would be correct for a race like this. I had it set to
30
for all 4 tires. My friends suggested it should go lower, and that
I should
burn out a bit to warm the tires up. I kept it at 30 psi despite
what they
said, and chose to skip the burn out because I remember my old
auto shop
teacher saying the compound in street tires does not warm up, it
just scrubs
off. Tire size is 245/45 ZR-17. I had good reaction times
for the 3 runs I
had, but the car was slow off the line.
Thanx
Mike
97 SL auto
K&N FIPK
D&N Intake Pipe
Other stuff. .
.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:17:37 -0600
From: "cody" <
overclck@satx.rr.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: 1/4 mile preparation Q
You are right about the burnout - absolutely no good... A Quick spin of the
tires is good to get to fresh rubber, and clean the tire a little
though...
Lowest I ran successfully at the track was 23 psi on 275/35-18 Kumho
712's... These tires have a lot of flotation to them (they are wide), so
lower pressures will still support the weight of the car. I wouldn't go
below 25 psi, cause remember, they still have to hold up the car at close to 100
mph...
Out of curiosity, what did the car run?
Auto can be a bear in these cars... To me, it feels like a night and
day difference between auto and manual...
- -Cody
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 01:26:09 -0700
From: "Donald Ashby" <
dashbyiii@earthlink.net>
Subject:
Team3S: Something very wrong after injector swap
Alright, I upgraded my injectors to 450s yesterday, and all seemed well
once I completed it, set baseline to -20 on S-AFC and tuned from there. But then
today weird things started happening. When I first started the car it started
seeking idle, going from about 400 rpm to 1200, before dieing after about 30
seconds. I let it sit for a minute or so then started it again and it ran fine.
Then this evening my car feels completely different. I now have "turbo lag" for
lack of a better word. I still have stock turbos, so before I would spool at
about 2.5-3k rpm. Now what the car does is hits about 4 psi until 4k rpm then
suddenly shooting up to 10 psi and holding that until redline, it feels exactly
like a car with a big turbo that takes a while to spool. I have tried unscrewing
my manual boost controller more to get more boost but the highest I got was 11
psi. I reconnected it back together so that the stock boost solenoid is
controlling boost now because I don't want to burn out my turbos, and still I
get the lag before 4,000 rpm. Someone help please, this is starting to worry me.
Donald Ashby '93 3000GT VR-4 "Don't drink and park, accidents cause
people!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 01:36:52 -0700
From: "Donald Ashby" <
dashbyiii@earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Basic Performance Modifications
My friend with a 2g Talon has a avc-r, he says it was the biggest waste of
money ever spent, we unplugged it and put in my $5 bleeder valve, after about 15
minutes we had it set to the same boost, it took half an hour to set on the
avc-r. I've never put a EBC on my car, always ran with my MBC, and according to
my boost gauge it runs pretty solid boost, fairly easy to change to, pop hood,
unscrew/screw in/out hop back in drive off. Donald Ashby '93 3000GT VR-4 "Don't
drink and park, accidents cause people!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:21:09 -0000
From: "Jim Matthews" <
jim@the-matthews.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Basic Performance Modifications
I can't say I've been completely happy with my AVC-R (1st version).
It doesn't work at altitude (turns into nothing more than a boost meter at above
5000 feet), it seems weather sensitive, and I have to set BADC manually.
All of these issues are mysteries to me, as the algorithm should be
simple:
while(on)
{
if(boost < limit)
then wastegates
closed
else wastegates open
}
That said, when set up properly and not in the mountains, it keeps
pressure rock-steady with no overboosting. I definitely feel comfortable
with an electronic controller that is monitoring conditions and providing
feedback.
*** 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
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 08:58:03 -0000
From: "Leo J. Fabilli" <
fabilli@bignet.net>
Subject: Team3S:
Team Thanks For Info Request Response
Just wanted to take a minute to thank the team members for the many
thorough responses for info on maintenance, perf upgrades and wheel/tire
possibilities. I have plenty of good info to make some decisions.
Thanks,
Leo
93 Stealth TT
------------------------------
I am thinking about doing my own 60k service, after nearly having a heart
attack when the dealer told me it would be about $700 to change the timing belt
and the water pump.
I have a 1997 VR-4 and was wondering is it really that hard to change this
stuff myself ? I looked over the 60k service page on Team3s so I have a
general idea. But I just want to make sure I put the belt on right and not
screw up any valves or such.
Why do the cam gears have to be removed to change the timing belt ?
Can't you just loosen the adjuster then take the belt off ?
If I do it myself, I have to look around for the best prices on parts, as
due to the poor economy, I still haven't been able to locate a job, so money is
scarce.
Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks
------------------------------
End of Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth V2
#104
***************************************