progress on the banshee...

[The Dark Side of Will]

If you use the C5/C6 wheel bearing geometry, there is a Chrysler application bearing with the 4.5" pattern that bolts right on and even takes the same axle: 513089 (93-04 Intrepid).

Is there an outer CV that works with Fiero axles?
GM used 27 splines on the large pattern A-bodies and 33 splines on the large FWD cars. The C5's and C6's used 30 spline outers for some reason, with only the C7's going to 33.

[The Dark Side of Will]

after some discussion with Will, he explained that most adjustable shocks and struts really aren't as good as the aftermarket would lead us to believe. He also mentioned having Koni adjustable struts on his cars, and it clicked a little reminder in my head, that I actually have a set of said struts in the garage that need to be rebuilt, so he successfully saved me probably over $1000, and lots of R&D.

Konis can be revalved, although I don't think Koni themselves does that anymore. The Koni struts for Fieros just get turned full stiff and left there, at least with stock springs. I've never felt a need to soften them on the Storm Trooper.

I've read at least one dyno analysis that showed that only Penske had adjusters with decent linearity, repeatability and authority. Everything else was a random damping generator.

I'm also looking into options for Wilwood brakes, on the one hand, I'd love to use an OEM part that I can pick up at the parts store, on the other, I've had very poor luck with parts store brake components. I'm hoping my choices in brake components may be able to offset some of the weight gained in the parking brake, bigger bearing, and custom uprights. the hats are for a C5 corvette, the rotors are 12.88x.81", and the calipers are Wilwood dyna pro's

https://www.wilwood.com/Rotors/RotorPro ... 56&appid=0

Expensive consumables, Brah. Glad you're feeling rich!

Check these out: https://wilwood.com/Rotors/RotorProd?it ... 00&appid=0

I'm hoping to produce the upright as a drop unit, raising the bearing up approximately 1.5"-2" lowering the car while having minimal impact on suspension geometry, it's also the only place I currently plan to deviate from stock geometry unless someone suggests otherwise.

A "lowering knuckle" is open to interpretation. The packaging reality is that getting "enough" travel at your desired ride height so that you don't need to run unreasonably stiff springs to stay off the bump stops dictates far more about knuckle geometry.

Lowering the outer pivots of the '88 lateral links is an unmixed improvement to the suspension geometry, from what I've read from Steven, Paul and at least a few others.

[ericjon262]

after some discussion with Will, he explained that most adjustable shocks and struts really aren't as good as the aftermarket would lead us to believe. He also mentioned having Koni adjustable struts on his cars, and it clicked a little reminder in my head, that I actually have a set of said struts in the garage that need to be rebuilt, so he successfully saved me probably over $1000, and lots of R&D.

Konis can be revalved, although I don't think Koni themselves does that anymore. The Koni struts for Fieros just get turned full stiff and left there, at least with stock springs. I've never felt a need to soften them on the Storm Trooper.

I've read at least one dyno analysis that showed that only Penske had adjusters with decent linearity, repeatability and authority. Everything else was a random damping generator.

I might look into revalving them, if I can, I may try and pick up a second set so that I can play around with the valving and keep the car on the road while I wait for them to come back from a rebuild shop.

I'm also looking into options for Wilwood brakes, on the one hand, I'd love to use an OEM part that I can pick up at the parts store, on the other, I've had very poor luck with parts store brake components. I'm hoping my choices in brake components may be able to offset some of the weight gained in the parking brake, bigger bearing, and custom uprights. the hats are for a C5 corvette, the rotors are 12.88x.81", and the calipers are Wilwood dyna pro's

https://www.wilwood.com/Rotors/RotorPro ... 56&appid=0

Expensive consumables, Brah. Glad you're feeling rich!

Check these out: https://wilwood.com/Rotors/RotorProd?it ... 00&appid=0

for some reason, in my head I was considering that the thinner rotors would be lighter than thicker ones, disregarding the idea the the majority of the weight is in the faces of the rotor...

not only are those rotors lighter, they're a smaller diameter, which will help with acceleration, and because they're wider, they should cool better. they also aren't so much smaller as to have a massive effect on braking capacity... the only reason not to run them, would be packaging, but I can't imagine them packaging worse than a 12.88" rotor.

sometimes I'm retarded and need Will to remind me twice in a week not to spend a stoopid amount of money...

I'm hoping to produce the upright as a drop unit, raising the bearing up approximately 1.5"-2" lowering the car while having minimal impact on suspension geometry, it's also the only place I currently plan to deviate from stock geometry unless someone suggests otherwise.

A "lowering knuckle" is open to interpretation. The packaging reality is that getting "enough" travel at your desired ride height so that you don't need to run unreasonably stiff springs to stay off the bump stops dictates far more about knuckle geometry.

Lowering the outer pivots of the '88 lateral links is an unmixed improvement to the suspension geometry, from what I've read from Steven, Paul and at least a few others.

without having a CV axle in front of me to measure, I'm not sure I'll be able to lower the strut mount much at all, if that's the case, the full extent of the departure from stock geometry at this point, would be lowering the outer pivots.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I'm also looking into options for Wilwood brakes, on the one hand, I'd love to use an OEM part that I can pick up at the parts store, on the other, I've had very poor luck with parts store brake components. I'm hoping my choices in brake components may be able to offset some of the weight gained in the parking brake, bigger bearing, and custom uprights. the hats are for a C5 corvette, the rotors are 12.88x.81", and the calipers are Wilwood dyna pro's

https://www.wilwood.com/Rotors/RotorPro ... 56&appid=0

Expensive consumables, Brah. Glad you're feeling rich!

Check these out: https://wilwood.com/Rotors/RotorProd?it ... 00&appid=0

for some reason, in my head I was considering that the thinner rotors would be lighter than thicker ones, disregarding the idea the the majority of the weight is in the faces of the rotor...

not only are those rotors lighter, they're a smaller diameter, which will help with acceleration, and because they're wider, they should cool better. they also aren't so much smaller as to have a massive effect on braking capacity... the only reason not to run them, would be packaging, but I can't imagine them packaging worse than a 12.88" rotor.

sometimes I'm retarded and need Will to remind me twice in a week not to spend a stoopid amount of money...

The weird thing about those rotors is that the bolt circle is 8x7.62. That's what drove me to work so hard on developing a parking brake smaller than the Corvette's... it had to fit inside that 7.62" (not mm!) bolt circle. However, custom hats are a one time expense. Since they're on a Fiero, the hats may need a custom offset anyway, so the incremental cost is probably not that high.

[ericjon262]

the custom offset could also work extremely well for me, the stacked plate design of my knuckle could require a trip to the machine sop in order to center the caliper, with a custom offset rotor, I can just change the design with that in mind.... damnit, now I need to look at your hot rod parking brake again.

[Series8217]

If you use the C5/C6 wheel bearing geometry, there is a Chrysler application bearing with the 4.5" pattern that bolts right on and even takes the same axle: 513089 (93-04 Intrepid).

Is there an outer CV that works with Fiero axles?
GM used 27 splines on the large pattern A-bodies and 33 splines on the large FWD cars. The C5's and C6's used 30 spline outers for some reason, with only the C7's going to 33.

The Chrysler outer CV should fit on the Fiero CV shaft splines, but I haven't test-fitted it yet. I have all the parts, just need to get around to it. In theory this outer CV will be compatible with the Fiero axle shaft, and the Chrysler and GM 33-spline wheel bearings.

The 2010-2015 Camaro manual trans rear wheel bearing has 33 splines and fits the same hole pattern in the knuckle. It's 5x120 whereas the C7 is 5x4.75. The ABS encoder is different as well, but that doesn't matter for most of us.

Between the C7, Chrysler 300M, and Camaro bearings, you get 33 splines and either 5x120, 5x4.75, or 5x114.3 in the same hub unit mounting pattern. The wheel and rotor pilots are all different but at least for the GM parts you can find many rotors that will fit.

[ericjon262]

My cam arrived yesterday, I've been super busy, so all I did with it was check it out. Maybe over the next few days I can find some garage time and start getting things a little closer to going together. I need to pick up some clay for PYV checks, as well as some check springs.

[zok15]

Nice I am looking forwards to seeing it come together

[ericjon262]

thanks, I'm hoping to make a little progress on it tonight and maybe this weekend. I have found a few little issues I need to work out, but hopefully I can make them go away easy enough.

[ericjon262]

working on a "bolt on" cam wheel for my LX9, to allow me to utilize the LS1 wheel decoder in my MS3. the idea is that four M3 bolts would hold the 180 degree reluctor to the cam with 2 saddles. according to onshape, the saddles should weigh about an ounce, and the reluctor should weigh just under 4 ounces. I crunched some numbers, and figure 4 M3 class 12.9 bolts should proof test to about 6 pounds. That said, the bolts are only as strong as what they're bolted to, and centrifugal force will increase the load on the bolts as the RPM goes up.



according to this calculator, at 4000 RPM, the force would be over 100 pounds, which if you didn't already know, is a bit more than 6... I don't plan on revving that high frequently, but I also would prefer to have a reasonable safety margin as well, so I guess I need to scrap this drawing and work on a different method.

[pmbrunelle]

I crunched some numbers, and figure 4 M3 class 12.9 bolts should proof test to about 6 pounds.

Your numbers are wrong, so re-check your work. Should be a bunch stronger than that.

I use this reference chart quite often:
https://www.fastenal.com/content/merch_ ... 0Guide.pdf

Most of the torque data in that chart comes from the equation T = KDF (see notes at bottom right).

Tensile stress in the screw is calculated using that circular area that is contained within the minor diameter of the threads.

[ericjon262]

I crunched some numbers, and figure 4 M3 class 12.9 bolts should proof test to about 6 pounds.

Your numbers are wrong, so re-check your work. Should be a bunch stronger than that.

I use this reference chart quite often:
https://www.fastenal.com/content/merch_ ... 0Guide.pdf

Most of the torque data in that chart comes from the equation T = KDF (see notes at bottom right).

Tensile stress in the screw is calculated using that circular area that is contained within the minor diameter of the threads.

I thought it seemed crazy low, but they are also tiny... There were several unit conversions, I must have misplaced a decimal somewhere. I'll revisit it tonight at work and try and see where I'm wrong.

[The Dark Side of Will]

A #10 bolt is good for ~600# of pre-load (numbers off the top of my head)... so yeah... 6# is a couple orders of magnitude low.

Also, 0.246# of stuff generating 100# of centrifugal force on such a small radius at 4000 rpm sounds high.

[ericjon262]

so, I was giving this some thought today, and I decided I'm not going to modify the cam for the 180 degree reluctor, there's no real reason as my current control scheme works. I'm going to install the cam and run it.

[ericjon262]

not much actual progress, I did however determine I need more PTV clearance. I'm handling this the same way I did one of my previous LX9's, except this time, I used valves from an LZ4 head as a cutter to improve radial clearance. so far, I have 2 cylinders done, 4 to go. I'd like to try and finish them this week, but it may be next week.

I'm attempting to find a rebuild kit got an F23, I have a couple of them, and would like to put together another hybrid with the eco gearing. if anyone has a lead I'd be interested in hearing about it.

notes for me:

potential bearing kits?

https://www.autogear.uk.com/vauxhall/va ... r-kit.html

https://www.autogear.uk.com/vauxhall-ve ... r-kit.html

https://www.autogear.uk.com/vauxhall-si ... r-kit.html

https://www.autogear.uk.com/vauxhall-me ... r-kit.html

[ericjon262]

I haven't made any significant progress on the car, I was driving it the other day and noticed some spark knock, I tried pulling timing to resolve it, and it was still there, I'm going to pull the plugs and check them, I also ordered some colder plugs too, one set two steps colder, one set three steps colder.

I've had another issue occur a couple of times, where the either the MS3, or DBW unit stops responding to input, of course it hasn't done it while data logging, so I'm not sure which is giving problems. it did it several times this morning, leaving my girlfriends house on my way to work. I had to stop by my house on the way, and intended on hooking the laptop up and datalogging the MS3 and DBW unit, but about a block from the house my back left tire picked up a nail and was leaking pretty bad. erg. I took the truck to work, and now I'm sure by the time I get back to the car it won't still be doing it.

[ericjon262]

I was able to datalog the DBW fault, it was the Accelerator Position Sensor. I have a new one on order, the one in the car was a junkyard part out of a fleet vehicle with unknown miles, hopefully the new one resolves any further issues that I have.

in other news...

not that it's much progress, but I installed some 2 step colder plugs, (NGK BR7EF) hopefully it will solve my knock issues.

my valve reliefs are all cut, I'm going to re inspect P-V clearance later this week and make sure everything is cool.

[ericjon262]

over the past month I've been daily driving the Fiero, I probably shouldn't be, but i have been... lol. I'm getting the startup and warmup fueling dialed in way better than I had been living with in the past.

I also started playing with a few other things, for the new engine, I will need new lifters, stock replacement lifters have been pretty hit and miss, and there isn't an aftermarket option. .842" isn't an uncommon size for lifters, so I started looking at other manufacturers to see what's out there, one thing I found right off, was that flat tappet 60V6's and SBC's use the same lifter, I also noticed that some lifter manufacturer's list SBC lifters in two heights, a standard, and a +.300" I also know that roller cam small block chevys have taller lifter bores in the block (about .300" taller) than flat tappet blocks. Today, on a hunch, I ordered a set of Johnson reduced travel, standard height SBC link bar lifters that I plan to test fit in my engine and compare to a set of stock 60V6 lifters and see how things line up. Hopefully all I will have to do is modify or make link bars to fit the 60V6, and then have a much higher quality lifter than is otherwise available.

in the background, I've also been deeply considering my old custom intake project again, recently, I put a stock lower in a mill, and milled off almost everything that might be in the way of welding in custom runners, and I ended up with this:



I might take better pictures later, but I came to a couple conclusions looking at that "manifold".

1. the stock runners come out of the head and make turns immediately, and it isn't feasible to cut the stock runners in a manner that it is possible to weld back to them because of that.

2. Welding cast is enough of a pain without it having been coated inside and out with oil. also making using the stock base less desirable

Casting a complete manifold would be awesome, but realistically, I need way more/bigger equipment than I am ready to buy or build. casting runners is close to within my means as long as I can come up with a reasonable process of making molds from 3d printed parts.

Looking at another stock lower I had, I made another observation that required further investigation, the stock lower has ports that turn as they leave the head, noticing those, I wondered what the inside of the port on the head looked like, does it leave the head in the middle of a curve? Does this curve match the curve of the intake?

in this picture, you can see the curve in the lower intake runner:



to investigate this further, I took an old head I had laying around, and put it in a bandsaw and cut it up, here are the results:

I made 6 cuts on it to better evaluate the ports, and how they meet the manifold flange. I made 4 vertical cuts, and 2 horizontal.







Vertical cross section of an intake port. in this view it's fairly clear that the port exits very close to perpendicular to the flange, which makes designing the intake a little easier.





Horizontal cross section of the intake port. in these pictures, we can see that the "short side radius" approaches the flange perpendicular, however, the "long side radius" curves towards the short side as it approaches the flange. this is similar to the curve in the lower intake manifold, however, the curve of the lower intake doesn't happen until after the flange, and doesn't seem to really match the curve of the port in the cylinder head. if the curve did match the LIM, it would be disrupted by the gasket as well. Looking at the shape of the ports, I think it may be acceptable to run the ports of the intake straight, and port the head to match.

[pmbrunelle]

Welding used aluminium sucks, but what if you look into using glue instead?

I wouldn't want to butt-glue runners on, but if you can make slip-fit joints with your homebrew cast runners...

Have you tried getting a brand-new intake manifold from a dealer?

[ericjon262]

glue is an interesting idea that I hadn't considered. welding to the stock lower is problematic for 2 reasons, one, it's used, but two, getting the torch into the spots needed to weld is problematic. I considered removing more material from the lower to make access for the torch, but by the time you do that you don't have anything to weld to. tomorrow, I hope to make a test cut on the plasma cutter of an intake flange, if all goes well, I'll have a pair of flanges laser cut and build an entire intake.

I do need to research 3d printer materials and their durability in high vibration, high temperature environments, the use of printed parts in some areas could be useful for development, and prototyping.