Real Fiero Tech

Not on Macs

How 'bout a "right click, save as"?

Running both MAP and MAF is a function of software. '94 and newer LT1 electronics and LS1 electronics use both MAF and MAP. They compute and initial fueling solution with the MAF, then cross check MAP base fuel solution. If MAF fails, they fall back to MAP. That's why you can unplug the airflow mete...

Spanks

Lots of little birdies say that...

That's very hard on synchros and clutch (and rev-limiter too).
I shift dam fast, but I still lift for the sake of transmission life.

I currently have 17x7's all around and would really love to go to a 17x10 outback. You're suspension is apart right now, right? Think you can get me that measurement? That would speed things along a bit... If I get the prototypes done and find that I could have gone with an extra 1/2", I'd hav...

Because 6" rods are by definition cooler than 5.7" rods. And because narrowing the rods is really not that hard. Especially for individuals like myself who have access to a machine shop. Small journal 6" rods are readily available. And the fact that every little bit helps. The increas...

BB turbos are not necessary unless you are going racing and need to have spool 300 rpm sooner then a non BB turbo Don't forget that BB turbos build back their boost a lot faster after a shift as well. Friend of mine has an AWD 2G Talon with T3/TO4B hybrid with plain bearings. After power shifting t...

Held coil overs are no different than any other coil overs. I already have homegrown Koni coil overs... I'd be able to run the above mentioned 17x9 with those, but not 17x10.

Well the minimum it can move without modifying the struts and/or hub carrier is about 1"...

WCF says that 17x9-45's will fit on stock suspension. Based on my calcs relative to a 16x8-25 wheel, I think that 17x10-51's would fit with 1" strut blocks... That's a real nice wheel for a 275/40-17

Yeah, people use bearing spacers to put standard Chevy cranks into 400 blocks, but those are main bearings... I don't think the rod bearings would be a good idea... that's reciprocating weight that doesn't contribute to the strength of anything...

L99 conrods are 5.940", which would get those 1.242 pistons down to 0.18 out of the hole... but the L99 is a late engine with 2.100 rod journals. Where did those pistons come from anyway? What was their original intended application? What's the bore? 3.598? That'll give you 4 thou of clearance ...

So my formula needs some refining... ok at 8000 RPM, this engine has 73 ftlbs/litre. That's a hard data point that is 103.4% VE... At 5200 RPM and 141 ftlbs, it has 78.5 ftlbs/litre at 100.2% VE. Ok... here's my mistake... I was thinking that the E46 M3 engine made 85 ftlbs/litre, but it doesn't... ...

Not an answer, but I stumbled upon these numbers while looking for the answer to VE: A box stock ITR engine will belt out right at 202 crank HP at 8000 rpm and it's peak air consumption is only 247cfm, So you know the RPM of peak air consumption? 0.9 litres per rev * 8000 Revs/min * 61 ci/litre / 1...

That's all? Woulda figured that sucker would've been 11:1...

10.6 is still a hell of a lot better than 8.9 or whatever shit the 2.8 has...

Yeah, what's the compression ratio on that Honda?

Are you saying that the GM spec for inside the rod is 2.1247? What I have says 1.9987-1.9994. The bore in the rod may be 2.1247, but that's the journal size PLUS twice the thickness of the bearing insert. The V6 and early, small journal Chevies have the same size journals... Should just need to have...

Don't know the length... Stock one reaches on my car...

That's correct...

Who in the hell made those pistons and for what? With 76 crank and 6" rod, they'd be 0.079 in the hole... with 84 crank and 6" rods, they'd be 0.078 out of the hole... WTF?