progress on the banshee...

[ericjon262]

I don't think the intercooler should be a restriction at ~9PSI that pull saw, that said, that particular run was pretty violent, while the intercooler was working, the driver, and shifter were not so great, the one-two shift didn't quite go according to plan... next time I have the engine out I plan to add TMAP sensors before and after the intercooler to monitor the intercooler performance.



now that the intercooler is on, I'm more interested in getting the car on a dyno, but that's a minimum of a few weeks out, I also desperately need to start working on the new engine, this one doesn't sound happy at all.

[Shaun41178(2)]

If you want less temp rise you gotta use a larger intercooler. It's just that simple.

If I am not mistaken you have the silicone intakes intercooler that is rated for around 350 HP. 550 cfm? I think I have the same as yours. Convert cfm to lb min and you will see the one you have is maxxed. Unless silicone has a misprint on their site

It's also hot right now. Temps in the 80s and 90s. When temps get down into the 50s and 60s your intercooler and water temps start much lower and it takes a good bit of boost to heat that water up

Also you don't need thermocouples before and after intercooler. Simple math will tell you your output temps from the turbo.

[ericjon262]

If you want less temp rise you gotta use a larger intercooler. It's just that simple.

If I am not mistaken you have the silicone intakes intercooler that is rated for around 350 HP. 550 cfm? I think I have the same as yours. Convert cfm to lb min and you will see the one you have is maxxed. Unless silicone has a misprint on their site

It's also hot right now. Temps in the 80s and 90s. When temps get down into the 50s and 60s your intercooler and water temps start much lower and it takes a good bit of boost to heat that water up

Also you don't need thermocouples before and after intercooler. Simple math will tell you your output temps from the turbo.

you are correct that I ordered my intercooler from silicone intakes/frozenboost, but I ordered the larger version, rated to 600 hp. it is hot outside, and my low flow/pressure. my IAT's are about 5-10 degrees higher than outside ambient.

I don't completely agree with your assessment on temperature rise, if this were an A2A setup, I would, but the intercooler itself is only one piece of the puzzle, the others parts can have a MASSIVE affect on temperature. with an A2W setup, we can change the heat exchanger, to reduce the inlet temp to the intercooler, *if* the current heat exchanger is inadequate. if the heat exchanger is adequate, then we still have another option to explore, the intercooler pump. upgrading the pump to a higher flow rate will further reduce the temperature of the discharge water, and the discharge air, the consequence is that the airflow across the heat exchanger is unchanged, over a some time, the water could begin to heat soak. a fan on the heat exchanger could also be a benefit. unfortunately, I don't currently have the means to instrument the water temperatures in a useful manner. I do have unused inputs on the MS3, but no more terminals on the C100 to pass them through with.

[ericjon262]

The intercooler performance appears to be adequate, but I would still like to instrument temperature in 4 places, Air into the intercooler, air out,
and the water side in/out. the TMAP sensors measure both temperature and pressure, which would allow me to see the pressure drop across the intercooler, and give me an idea of if it's becoming an excessive restriction.

here's a link to the TMAP sensors.

https://www.bmotorsports.com/shop/produ ... ts_id/1721


I checked my IAT's before and after a quick run around the block, temperatures rose from 95F to 131F and back to 95F in about 43 seconds. from the 131F peak back to 95F was about 30 seconds.



The temperature dip at tip in leads me to believe there's some heat soak going on, and the initial flow of air across the sensor is lowering the sensor body temperature. the TMAP sensors should be further from heat sources than the current MAT sensor, which should help with heat soak issues hopefully. I intend to relocate the current IAT sensor to a pre-turbo location to provide indication of temperature rise across the turbo as well.

[Shaun41178(2)]

Here is my opinion

It's a fiero!

I see no point in spending countless hours or your time as well as money, to measure temps out of the turbo and then out of the intercooler, as well as pressure drop. So you find out this info. So what! Your setup is not the best, but it's not the worst either for the dollar amount. Yea you now know this data now, but you aren't gonna be hitting an f1 road circuit anytime soon.

Looking at your recovery time on your mat temps is really really good. When temps get cooler in 2 months for you, you prob won't see temp rise over 120 unless you do a stupid long pull through multiple gears.

It looks like you have the Bosch pump. You could get better but at what cost? Not to mention you only have a 2.5 gallon res tank. A larger tank won't lower temps but your recovery time would be vastly improved as the larger volume of water takes longer to heat. But it also weighs more

Honestly dude, I'd say your system is pretty good for your power goal. When temps cool off you will see a big difference in mat rise and recovery times. Your gonna have 6 months of cool temps. I'd wait to see how things respond in 60 degree weather before spending time and money on any upgrades.

I'm only saying this because I was hitting 20 lbs non intercooled on my forged motor with 93 octane, and doing fourth gear rips to 6800 rpm, and I believe my temps showed no higher than 130 peak when outdoor temps were in the 50s. Granted the mat sensor is slow to respond, but it just shows the difference cooler temps have on overall rise of intake temp

I'd wait a few months for cooler weather before seeing if you should go further.

My.opinion

[ericjon262]

Here is my opinion

It's a fiero!

I see no point in spending countless hours or your time as well as money, to measure temps out of the turbo and then out of the intercooler, as well as pressure drop. So you find out this info. So what! Your setup is not the best, but it's not the worst either for the dollar amount. Yea you now know this data now, but you aren't gonna be hitting an f1 road circuit anytime soon.

Looking at your recovery time on your mat temps is really really good. When temps get cooler in 2 months for you, you prob won't see temp rise over 120 unless you do a stupid long pull through multiple gears.

It looks like you have the Bosch pump. You could get better but at what cost? Not to mention you only have a 2.5 gallon res tank. A larger tank won't lower temps but your recovery time would be vastly improved as the larger volume of water takes longer to heat. But it also weighs more

Honestly dude, I'd say your system is pretty good for your power goal. When temps cool off you will see a big difference in mat rise and recovery times. Your gonna have 6 months of cool temps. I'd wait to see how things respond in 60 degree weather before spending time and money on any upgrades.

I'm only saying this because I was hitting 20 lbs non intercooled on my forged motor with 93 octane, and doing fourth gear rips to 6800 rpm, and I believe my temps showed no higher than 130 peak when outdoor temps were in the 50s. Granted the mat sensor is slow to respond, but it just shows the difference cooler temps have on overall rise of intake temp

I'd wait a few months for cooler weather before seeing if you should go further.

My.opinion

it's more of a "because I can" thing than a need. I don't plan on adding the instrumentation prior to installing the new engine either way, speaking of which, I should get to work on that... I actually have two bosch pumps here, if I plumbed them in parallel, it would slightly less than double the flow, but without instrumentation, there's nothing to say that's necessary, or will help anything. if the heat exchanger is undersized, it won't be any good either way.

the other thing I need to start looking at is thermal management. I'd rather not wrap the exhaust in the traditional sense, but something like I have linked to below should go a long way to reducing underhood temps, improving spool time, and increasing component life.

https://www.eastwood.com/heatshield-pro ... 75110.html

but it's still a pretty low priority. probably not something I'll take on until the engine is out again unless I can find an easy way to make it happen in the car. I was this *squeezes fingers together* close to taking the car to the track today. I didn't have anyone available to trailer the car back if disaster struck, and I didn't feel like trailering it there. I'm going on a little road trip, if I'm back in time, I'll go next week, if not, my shift schedule works out that I can go the following week.

Earlier in this thread I mentioned the pump was loud, turns out you can't hear it at all with the engine running, so I set it to any time above 400 RPM, that should prevent it from running while cranking, but run pretty much anytime thereafter. if I update to a solid state relay, I may change the control scheme, but for now, it'll be simple on off.

[ericjon262]

got to the dragstrip, car running ok, feeling pumped, ready to make a pass, good, bad, or ugly...



Test and tune, "Canceled due to unfavorable weather"

erg. oh well.

[ericjon262]

well...

I don't plan on adding the instrumentation prior to installing the new engine either way, speaking of which, I should get to work on that...

I should try and start putting this together a bit sooner I guess, as it looks like I may be needing a clutch sooner than I would have thought.

looks like this thread is more important to me...



the short dip in TPS was the 1-2 Shift, note RPM goes to the limit, and wheel speed doesn't correlate, clutch didn't hold, didn't even slow down...

ERG. I'm feeling out a few options...

I'm looking into a few options, including a twin disc like in the thread quoted above. I guess the sensible thing to do will be to get the engine built, and handle the the new clutch at the same time...I'll need another F23 for mockup purposes.

in other news, I did spring for some insulation that I'm going to put on the exhaust, which should help immensely with underhood temps.hopefully the front manifold isn't as difficult as I am expecting. I'm also hoping it helps keep heat out of the intercooler, and passenger compartment. it should be here Tuesday.

I've been working on road tuning the car some, I found a very detailed spec sheet for my injectors, put in the data from them, and the engine appears to be running much better, and dialing in a bit better as well.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NkXNF- ... pqJT_/view

inputting those values also seemed to make other things work better/give more realistic seeming data, IE, MPG per the MS3 seems like reasonable numbers, instead of some bonkers numbers like I was getting before.

I also rescaled my RPM graduations on my tables, increasing resolution in the lower parts of the table where the engine is operated steady state. I've also contemplated enabling table switching again to have a ton of resolution, but I also don't really see a need for that much resolution ATM, and it makes tuning a bit trickier, because I would no longer be able to view one table at a time, so if I ever do that, it will be after I have the tune very well dialed without switching, and just increase the resolution.

I kinda wish the AFR table was the same size as the VE/ignition tables so that the RPM graduations could match, the mild OCD tendencies are bothered by it...

[ericjon262]

I spent a miserable amount of time tuning the lower portions of the VE table yesterday after work. I got them dialed in to match the commanded 13 AFR, then commanded 12 and 14 AFR to see if the fuel compensation was correct, I got this:



notice how the AFR almost instantly pegs high, or low?

This kind of step lead me to believe the flow value for the injectors was off, first, I found that for some reason I changed base fuel pressure in the tune to 39.1 instead of 43.5... I fixed that, retuned the VE table to match the commanded 13 AFR, and tried again, no change. so I adjusted injectors flow up and down to see if any improvements were being made, and I really wasn't getting much change. so I began playing with injector dead times, bumping them up and down to try and see a trend, maybe they were off? I wasn't able to find much by adjusting dead times, eventually, I adjusted them WAY out to see if there was any change, and making them about 3.5x longer than what I started and got them generated a change in AFR closer to the commanded change, to adjust to that kind of value throws everything else off, at that point, my VE table had a peak of something like 40%.

after all of that, I have verified the data for my injectors off of 2 different sources, so I think it's reasonably accurate. I set my fuel pressure via a pressure gauge, and my pressure transducer that I log agrees with that pressure at fuel pump prime, as did a separate test gauge, my fuel pressure, is set to 300KPA in the tune, which matches the pressure from the other instruments. I have come to the conclusion that my injectors, although being new, with low miles/hours, might have something wrong with them? Dirty? ethanol shenanigans? something?

Fuel settings:



Current VE table:


insight would be appreciated if you have some. that being said, drunk me bought new fuel injectors last night, from FIC, that have all of the parameters defined for an MS3, so when they get here, I'll pull the plenum and put them on, and hopefully won't have further issues.

Beyond that, in this tuning series, I was able to gleam a important data point from this tuning session, Lambda delay time. because I was commanding a distinct difference in AFR, and the PCM was making a stepped change in PW, and generating a step change in AFR, it was very easy for me to see that it takes a whopping ~1.3 seconds average for the O2 sensor to register the change, in the MS3. (I checked several spots, average was ~1.3, this point was ~1.4)



this is only part of the equation though, delay time has two major contributors, one fixed delay, from the O2 sensor interface, the time it takes the interface to read the signals from the sensor, calculate a 0-5 volt output, and send the output, which will be the same all the time, and a variable delay, which would come from the time the exhaust has to travel to get to the sensor. These two factors are separate in the MS3 EGO control schemes, the fixed delay is under "AFR/EGO control" to adjust this value, you will need to enable EGO control if not already done, then enable the delay table. I got the value in this menu from the O2 sensor manufacturer, for a 14point7 Spartan 2, this value is 100-150ms. so I set it to 126(it only accepts even numbers)



for the variable delay, we have to inspect the datalogs, at idle, this is pretty easy, change the commanded AFR, PW should be relatively static before and after, so you can measure the time it takes for the change in PW to generate a change in AFR. next, take that time, and subtract the fixed delay from that time, and you have your first data point. alternatively, you could set the fixed delay to zero, and put the total delay in the table.



I said idle was easy, what about the rest of the RPM ranges? they probably won't be that much harder. but I haven't yet tested them, the trick to getting reliable data is to have a stepped change in AFR, due to a stepped change in PW. at power, it would probably be advisable to make this change a step richer, as opposed to leaner, but your tune will determine the safest way to do this. if you can make the change in AFR happen at the slowest RPM change possible, that will also give you the easiest data to read. My plan to get the delay data is to use the table switching functions of the MS3.

first, enable AFR table switching use one of the "Loop" triggers, this will allow you to edit both AFR tables. Next, transcribe your primary AFR table to the secondary, I use the table export feature. then highlight all the cells you want to include in your testing, in my case, the only purpose of this table is to test, so I highlighted the whole table. then change the commanded AFR by an amount that will generate a stepped change when the table switches.



Next, you'll need to configure the loop, the loop is basically a software based I/O, they're in the manual under "7.8.24.1 Loop conditions" set the active condition to whatever RPM value you want to test, make a few pulls, then repeat for the next RPM value.

as a general rule, the lambda delay should be long at low RPM, and short at high RPM, and low at low load, high at high load, with RPM being the dominate factor. most other variables for lambda delay are relatively fixed on a running engine, your exhaust size rarely changes, the O2 sensor distance from the port doesn't change, so this method should allow you to generate a viable table with minimal effort.

I did a bunch of searching and was unable to find any method to better do generate the delay table, if you have a better way, I'd love to hear it.

there are at least two other lambda delay tables, but I don't think either are associated with the tune, or even stored in the MS3. one is in Tunerstudio, the other in Megalog View. both are used for the autotune features in each program, and to maximize effectiveness of the programs, it would be a good idea to adjust the delay values too, I would use the same method I outlined above.

I don't intend to tune the delay table until the rest of my issues are more well sorted out though, it was just a tangent that I spent a little time on last night because I want to eventually dial that table in.

[pmbrunelle]

I kinda wish the AFR table was the same size as the VE/ignition tables so that the RPM graduations could match, the mild OCD tendencies are bothered by it...

I dealt with my OCD by arranging the tables like this:

AFR.jpg (165.64 KiB) Viewed 2155 times

The same breakpoints exist in the VE table (see the red rectangles):

VE.jpg (249.82 KiB) Viewed 2148 times

I just inserted the extra points for more resolution in-between the AFR table values.

I spent a miserable amount of time tuning the lower portions of the VE table yesterday after work. I got them dialed in to match the commanded 13 AFR, then commanded 12 and 14 AFR to see if the fuel compensation was correct, I got this:



notice how the AFR almost instantly pegs high, or low?

This kind of step lead me to believe the flow value for the injectors was off, first, I found that for some reason I changed base fuel pressure in the tune to 39.1 instead of 43.5... I fixed that, retuned the VE table to match the commanded 13 AFR, and tried again, no change. so I adjusted injectors flow up and down to see if any improvements were being made, and I really wasn't getting much change. so I began playing with injector dead times, bumping them up and down to try and see a trend, maybe they were off? I wasn't able to find much by adjusting dead times, eventually, I adjusted them WAY out to see if there was any change, and making them about 3.5x longer than what I started and got them generated a change in AFR closer to the commanded change, to adjust to that kind of value throws everything else off, at that point, my VE table had a peak of something like 40%.

You're doing this test at about 700 RPM with a cammed engine... probably have a bunch of fresh air bypassing the combustion chamber in the overlap period.

Remember, the oxygen sensor measures oxygen in the exhaust, NOT AFR.

If you want to use the oxygen sensor to infer changes in AFR, you should probably be doing so under some load with some RPM, cruising on the road, not at idle.

that being said, drunk me bought new fuel injectors last night, from FIC, that have all of the parameters defined for an MS3, so when they get here, I'll pull the plenum and put them on, and hopefully won't have further issues.

That's not bad for a drunk decision; maybe you should drink more often.

Once you have the new injectors and their dead time parameters, DON'T FUCK WITH THEM. These parameters are meant to simply characterize your injectors; you're not meant to play with these things to get the car running better. If the car doesn't run right, mess with something else, not the injector parameters if you're sure they're correct.

I said idle was easy, what about the rest of the RPM ranges? they probably won't be that much harder. but I haven't yet tested them, the trick to getting reliable data is to have a stepped change in AFR, due to a stepped change in PW. at power, it would probably be advisable to make this change a step richer, as opposed to leaner, but your tune will determine the safest way to do this. if you can make the change in AFR happen at the slowest RPM change possible, that will also give you the easiest data to read. My plan to get the delay data is to use the table switching functions of the MS3.

first, enable AFR table switching use one of the "Loop" triggers, this will allow you to edit both AFR tables. Next, transcribe your primary AFR table to the secondary, I use the table export feature. then highlight all the cells you want to include in your testing, in my case, the only purpose of this table is to test, so I highlighted the whole table. then change the commanded AFR by an amount that will generate a stepped change when the table switches.



Next, you'll need to configure the loop, the loop is basically a software based I/O, they're in the manual under "7.8.24.1 Loop conditions" set the active condition to whatever RPM value you want to test, make a few pulls, then repeat for the next RPM value.

as a general rule, the lambda delay should be long at low RPM, and short at high RPM, and low at low load, high at high load, with RPM being the dominate factor. most other variables for lambda delay are relatively fixed on a running engine, your exhaust size rarely changes, the O2 sensor distance from the port doesn't change, so this method should allow you to generate a viable table with minimal effort.

I did a bunch of searching and was unable to find any method to better do generate the delay table, if you have a better way, I'd love to hear it.

there are at least two other lambda delay tables, but I don't think either are associated with the tune, or even stored in the MS3. one is in Tunerstudio, the other in Megalog View. both are used for the autotune features in each program, and to maximize effectiveness of the programs, it would be a good idea to adjust the delay values too, I would use the same method I outlined above.

I don't intend to tune the delay table until the rest of my issues are more well sorted out though, it was just a tangent that I spent a little time on last night because I want to eventually dial that table in.

Your way to adjust the delay table sounds good. I've also looked at datalogs of WOT pulls and visually inspected the delay between the gear shift (well, pusle width) and how long it took for the change to appear in measured AFR.

I've also set up the AFR table so the AFR changes as RPM rises. To do this, I would use RPM breakpoints of 1999, 2000, 2999, 3000, 3999, 4000, etc. so the target AFR changes as a near-step function.

[ericjon262]

I kinda wish the AFR table was the same size as the VE/ignition tables so that the RPM graduations could match, the mild OCD tendencies are bothered by it...

I dealt with my OCD by arranging the tables like this:
AFR.jpg

The same breakpoints exist in the VE table (see the red rectangles):
VE.jpg

I just inserted the extra points for more resolution in-between the AFR table values.

I may revisit my tables and do something more like this, I went the other way, started with the 16x16 tables, and worked to the 12x12 tables.

I spent a miserable amount of time tuning the lower portions of the VE table yesterday after work. I got them dialed in to match the commanded 13 AFR, then commanded 12 and 14 AFR to see if the fuel compensation was correct, I got this:



notice how the AFR almost instantly pegs high, or low?

This kind of step lead me to believe the flow value for the injectors was off, first, I found that for some reason I changed base fuel pressure in the tune to 39.1 instead of 43.5... I fixed that, retuned the VE table to match the commanded 13 AFR, and tried again, no change. so I adjusted injectors flow up and down to see if any improvements were being made, and I really wasn't getting much change. so I began playing with injector dead times, bumping them up and down to try and see a trend, maybe they were off? I wasn't able to find much by adjusting dead times, eventually, I adjusted them WAY out to see if there was any change, and making them about 3.5x longer than what I started and got them generated a change in AFR closer to the commanded change, to adjust to that kind of value throws everything else off, at that point, my VE table had a peak of something like 40%.

You're doing this test at about 700 RPM with a cammed engine... probably have a bunch of fresh air bypassing the combustion chamber in the overlap period.

Remember, the oxygen sensor measures oxygen in the exhaust, NOT AFR.

If you want to use the oxygen sensor to infer changes in AFR, you should probably be doing so under some load with some RPM, cruising on the road, not at idle.

you're 100% correct, that said, I installed the new injectors, along with implementing all of the injector data and it seems as though the same test being run now, keeps the AFR at least within the range of the sensor, before the swing was so violent that it would peg the AFR high or low.

that being said, drunk me bought new fuel injectors last night, from FIC, that have all of the parameters defined for an MS3, so when they get here, I'll pull the plenum and put them on, and hopefully won't have further issues.

That's not bad for a drunk decision; maybe you should drink more often.

Once you have the new injectors and their dead time parameters, DON'T FUCK WITH THEM. These parameters are meant to simply characterize your injectors; you're not meant to play with these things to get the car running better. If the car doesn't run right, mess with something else, not the injector parameters if you're sure they're correct.

Right now, sober me is happy I have new injectors, but sad I'm out almost $600. I have no intention of adjusting the current dead times, the reason I had messed with them in the first place was because I wasn't 100% they were correct.

I said idle was easy, what about the rest of the RPM ranges? they probably won't be that much harder. but I haven't yet tested them, the trick to getting reliable data is to have a stepped change in AFR, due to a stepped change in PW. at power, it would probably be advisable to make this change a step richer, as opposed to leaner, but your tune will determine the safest way to do this. if you can make the change in AFR happen at the slowest RPM change possible, that will also give you the easiest data to read. My plan to get the delay data is to use the table switching functions of the MS3.

first, enable AFR table switching use one of the "Loop" triggers, this will allow you to edit both AFR tables. Next, transcribe your primary AFR table to the secondary, I use the table export feature. then highlight all the cells you want to include in your testing, in my case, the only purpose of this table is to test, so I highlighted the whole table. then change the commanded AFR by an amount that will generate a stepped change when the table switches.



Next, you'll need to configure the loop, the loop is basically a software based I/O, they're in the manual under "7.8.24.1 Loop conditions" set the active condition to whatever RPM value you want to test, make a few pulls, then repeat for the next RPM value.

as a general rule, the lambda delay should be long at low RPM, and short at high RPM, and low at low load, high at high load, with RPM being the dominate factor. most other variables for lambda delay are relatively fixed on a running engine, your exhaust size rarely changes, the O2 sensor distance from the port doesn't change, so this method should allow you to generate a viable table with minimal effort.

I did a bunch of searching and was unable to find any method to better do generate the delay table, if you have a better way, I'd love to hear it.

there are at least two other lambda delay tables, but I don't think either are associated with the tune, or even stored in the MS3. one is in Tunerstudio, the other in Megalog View. both are used for the autotune features in each program, and to maximize effectiveness of the programs, it would be a good idea to adjust the delay values too, I would use the same method I outlined above.

I don't intend to tune the delay table until the rest of my issues are more well sorted out though, it was just a tangent that I spent a little time on last night because I want to eventually dial that table in.

Your way to adjust the delay table sounds good. I've also looked at datalogs of WOT pulls and visually inspected the delay between the gear shift (well, pusle width) and how long it took for the change to appear in measured AFR.

I've also set up the AFR table so the AFR changes as RPM rises. To do this, I would use RPM breakpoints of 1999, 2000, 2999, 3000, 3999, 4000, etc. so the target AFR changes as a near-step function.

I was wondering about how many RPM to let it go to before having it revert to the original AFR table. I figure that might take a bit of trial and error.

[ericjon262]

I installed the FIC injectors today, the advantage, is that they are flow balanced to 1.6%, and come fully documented. if the MS3 allowed for inputting individual injector data, i could provide the flow rates of each serialized injector. I actually installed them in with the serial numbers in the same order as on the flow sheet so that if this later became an option I could attempt to take advantage of it, although 1.6% isn't much. I did a quick drive with the new injectors, and some testing showed that the new dead times and small pulsewidth data is performing slightly better than the old injectors. I did find while installing the new injectors, that the o-ring on injector 6 was leaking, this probably didn't help much. I also found that my intake manifold plenum gaskets were not enjoying life. they're generally considered a reusable part, I'm unsure if i reused them last time I installed the plenum, but I'm now looking into industrial grade options to replace the new gaskets I installed today, maybe sheet PTFE? it's extremely durable, and should seal quite well. I may even be able to cut some on a laser if I'm lucky.

For some reason, my fuel pressure is now about 6 psi higher than it was before replacing the injectors. I went back and checked old datalogs, thinking it must have been off for a while, but a log yesterday showed ~43 PSI, so I must have done something while installing the injectors, I'll adjust it tomorrow and keep driving it. so far, they feel like they are performing better, but I also made several other tune adjustments that may have been contributing factors.

[pmbrunelle]

PTFE might be a bit hard and not conform to the unevenness of the metal surfaces. I guess you could check for this by painting the plastic sheet with Prussian blue, and then seeing if the ink was transferred to the metal surfaces while they were clamped together. Also, I suspect that a non-slippery plastic would be better than a slippery one; friction with the metal could help the gasket avoid being blown out during boost. Rubber sheet maybe?

Other idea... use a thin metal spacer with three oval holes, and then use O-rings (located inside the oval holes of the spacer) to seal the runner holes. While O-rings are normally circular, they can be forced to follow a non-circular gasket path. The metal spacer thickness should be selected so the O-ring is compressed just the right amount.

Yet another idea... use the programmable mill to cut O-ring grooves into the plenum around each runner hole. Bolt plenum directly to lower intake.
Edit: it might be better to cut the O-ring grooves into the lower intake, so the O-rings don't fall from the plenum during installation.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Weren't there phenolic plenum spacers available for the GenIII V6's?

[ericjon262]

PTFE might be a bit hard and not conform to the unevenness of the metal surfaces. I guess you could check for this by painting the plastic sheet with Prussian blue, and then seeing if the ink was transferred to the metal surfaces while they were clamped together. Also, I suspect that a non-slippery plastic would be better than a slippery one; friction with the metal could help the gasket avoid being blown out during boost. Rubber sheet maybe?

Other idea... use a thin metal spacer with three oval holes, and then use O-rings (located inside the oval holes of the spacer) to seal the runner holes. While O-rings are normally circular, they can be forced to follow a non-circular gasket path. The metal spacer thickness should be selected so the O-ring is compressed just the right amount.

Yet another idea... use the programmable mill to cut O-ring grooves into the plenum around each runner hole. Bolt plenum directly to lower intake.
Edit: it might be better to cut the O-ring grooves into the lower intake, so the O-rings don't fall from the plenum during installation.

I was referring to expanded PTFE, it's actually pretty soft and extremely compressible.

https://www.teflexgasket.com/expanded-ptfe-gasket.html

We frequently use it at work in various high stress applications.

There isn't much room for an O-ring, it's an idea, but the ports were opened up pretty big, closely matching the size of the gasket.

Weren't there phenolic plenum spacers available for the GenIII V6's?

Probably, but I doubt they've been made for the past 7-10 years.

[ericjon262]

I've been paying more attention to since I noticed it was high yesterday, and now I'm seeing an interesting trend, or actually, a total lack thereof.



I have a vacuum referenced AFPR, and it doesn't appear to be doing anything like it should. right now, the fuel system is responding as a fixed system, which would be playing hell with the MS3 fueling algorithms, which is expecting a drop in fuel flow corresponding to a drop in fuel pressure caused by a drop in manifold vacuum.

I see two possible causes.

1. FPR vacuum leak. I can pick up a vacuum pump and test that when I get home.

2. unsuitable vacuum source. if my FPR is tapped into a higher velocity area, the pressure it sees may not be representative of plenum pressure, and therefore not respond as desired.

I'm fairly sure I have some -4 caps, I'll cap the line going to the FPR, reset fuel pressure, and change "Pressure regulation/correction" to fixed and see what that does for me.

I might not have needed new injectors after all, but I did kinda want to get slightly larger injectors anyways, and having dead time and small PW data specific to them will make for better running quality anyways.

I'll explore a new FPR, or moving the line if going to fixed pressure helps.

[ericjon262]

well, this is an interesting saga...

we'll start with the my early findings, I removed the sensing line, set fuel pressure to 43.5 psi, and then went for a drive.



that's with no sensing line hooked up at all... pressure all over the place. with the sensing line hooked up, fuel pressure is almost static. vacuum, boost, doesn't matter, fuel pressure stays in a ~2 PSI band.

at this point, I'm not 100% sure that to think, what I do know for sure though, is that as I try and adjust my fuel pressure regulator, I'm not getting the response I expect. and it's not responding very smoothly per turn of the adjusting screw.

I wanted an excuse to go to Summit racing, the local track requires a helmet at test and tune, and I didn't want to buy one I couldn't try on first, so I decided I'd pick up a new fuel pressure regulator while I was at it. I picked up a new fuel pressure regulator, and when I got home, I started transferring over fittings.





the pictures make it pretty hard to see. but there's witness marks on the end of the pipe threads, and on the spring.

the diaphragm also had metal shavings on it.



As I removed the fitting, I heard the spring move in the housing, which explains the abrupt adjustments, and pressure not staying stable without the sensing line hooked up. right? I shaved the threads down on the fitting, and put everything back together. As I adjusted fuel pressure, it now closely followed the turns of the adjuster. everything fixed?

well, kinda, but not really.

With the sensing line connected, pressure doesn't change much at all. I decided my next step was to remove the sensing line from the port I was using on the throttle body and try a spot that would be more representative of plenum pressure, I removed the brake booster line, installed a -6 to -4 adapter and connected the FPR to that. problem solved? nope. still flat as a pancake.

there's really not much else that can be going on here, all that's left is the going to the regulator. lets try that! I took the entire line off, gave it a blow, and it's clear as can be... WTF?

I didn't think it would fix anything, but I thought maybe raising fuel pressure higher more towards the middle of the band of the regulator would help? I took it to ~58 PSI, gave it another try.



nothing.

erg. this is quite the odd problem.... I emailed Aeromotive to see if they have any insight, at this point, I'm not sure what's going on, all of the ingredients are there, in the right order. For the time being, I'm going to run "Fixed" fuel pressure, since it's staying very static.

I found a thread on a mustang forum that suggests it could be leaking air past the adjustment screw, I might try and make a cap for the screw that seals it with an O ring or something, there were several commenters who believe this model regulator is junk, if that's the case, it's expensive junk.


https://www.corral.net/threads/aeromoti ... t.1332227/

Edit:

in unrelated news, mead drinking me started ordering parts for single adjusting UCA's. when Rodney sends me an invoice for a Fuel tank, I'll order the rest of the stuff I need.

[ericjon262]

Today I made, what I hope, solves my fuel pressure issues, we'll find out in a few hours.



That's a cap that uses the remaining threads of adjusting screw and an O ring to seal the adjusting screw threads.

installed will be something like this.



The PTT flywheel showed up, it fits nicely on the LX9 flexplate. I'll post pictures tomorrow.

[ericjon262]

PTT flywheel fits ok, on the LX9 flywheel



This is primarily because the LX9 flexplate has a reinforcement plate on it that spaces the flywheel away from the flexplate. part number 12579453



the PTT flywheel can't stack on a LA1 3400 flywheel



it doesn't have the reinforcing plate. so it doesn't sit flat.

the flexplate is only part of the problem though, it also needs a means to center on the crankshaft. The reinforcing plate on the LX9 flexplate pushes the flywheel out far enough to only contact the flexplate at the mating flange, but it also puts the entire flywheel beyond the register on the end of the crank. so I need to find a way to keep center the flywheel. the fastest, simplest solution is to make a centering ring, much like the hub centric ring used on a wheel, the issue with that, is that can lead to stacked tolerances and sub par alignment.

one of the other ideas was to machine the flexplate side of the flywheel down, but leave a ridge at the ID to register on the crankshaft. the ridge could fit inside the ID of the reinforcing plate, and around the OD of the crankshaft register. I'm not super fond of this idea, unless I could talk PTT into making me a blank flywheel with a thicker mating flange. I'm going to take some more accurate measurements and call to try and talk to one of their engineers and see what they say about that plan.

I'm OK with modification of both the flexplate, and to a degree, the flywheel, the flexplate is a brutally simple part, that doesn't really wear out, the flywheel, requires machine work to fit the engine either way. I do not want to modify a crankshaft in any way to fit this. at this point, a centric ring looks preferred, the cut required to make the reverse register on the flywheel would be pretty meaty, to go the full depth of the reinforcement plate, the cut would be about ~2.5mm, on a flange that's only ~7.25mm to begin with.

anyone have another idea?

also, fwiw, PTT flywheel, resting on a LX9 flexplate, has a stack height of about 1.05"

Edit: Will mentioned an idea to me that I had already dismissed, but on second thought, it may be worth exploring, if I make a part that going into the crank where a pilot bearing would go, I could extend the length of the register as long as I need. My biggest concern about this was input shaft clearance, I'm going to take more measurements when I get home. if I do that, I wouldn't machine the pilot bore full depth, I would make it slightly short, in order to make sure the register extension is captured and can't walk out.
__________________________________________________________


back to the fuel pressure shenanigans...

I made another interesting series of discoveries today...

My BOV and my FPR use the same manifold source, which tee's off the side of the throttle body. I disconnected this tee, connected a mity vac to the tee, and started pumping, vacuum dissipated almost instantly. so I split off the FPR, tested it seperate, with my new fancy cap installed, wouldn't you guess, it holds vacuum no problem. Unscrew the cap, and it instantly dissipates. well, I fixed one issue. I triggered the fuel pump output in test mode, and vacuumed it down, now everything appears to be in working order...

now, connecting to the other side of the line, going to the BOV, still, nothing... I mean absolutely nothing. as fast as I can pump, it's not holding at all, piston doesn't move either...

I took the BOV off, and disassembled it. the spray gun needle is not part of the assembly.



notice anything here?



how about in here?



well, without any kind of seal, I would imagine it wouldn't seal worth a shit. I'm not real happy about that finding, it's a legit Turbosmart BOV, not some no name china crap, I'd prefer not to rework the charge pipe for another BOV, but I'm not sure this flange is shared by a diaphragm style BOV. For now, I think my smartest move, will be to reinstall the existing BOV, it does relieve air like it should, but I'm not cool with a boost/vacuum leak just because something is a poor design. but because the BOV leaks, I can't have it, and the FPR tied to the same source, my plenum has a cast boss next to the brake booster line, I'll pull the plenum, drill and tap the boss, and take the FPR off of that, then, I'll leave the BOV attached to the TB. When I pull it apart to fix the cam bearing wear, I'll cut the BOV flange out, and weld in a diaphragm style valve to replace this piston style.

[The Dark Side of Will]

You're supposed to have enough blow-by oil in your PCV air to fill that gap and keep the piston sealed