DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 9 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 023 In this issue: Re: Wide Band Lambda Sensor, where can I locate? Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: Photo Radar Re: MTBE in gas, fuel line deterioration 749 calibration in a 730 PWMETER Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: Good work Greg.. Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: 749 calibration in a 730 Re: Water Injection Thread & CorvEight Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: Water Injection Thread Memcal ID Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: Photo Radar Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Stepper Motors Heat sink compound vs. dialectic Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: Stepper Motors Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: Heat sink compound vs. dialectic Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrian Teo Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 05:30:25 -0700 Subject: Re: Wide Band Lambda Sensor, where can I locate? Actually, only certain specific Honda models use the wide range O2 sensors. The O2 sensor in question is the NTK UEGO 5 (or sometimes 8-wire) O2 sensoer. This sensor is usually found in the following Hondas: US Models 92-95 Civic VX 96+ Civic HX >From Honda dealers they go for about $150 but you can find them at wrecking yards from $30-$50. - -AT Greg Hermann wrote: > >In a message dated 1/5/99 10:36:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, bearbvd@xxx.net > >writes: > > > >> > >> Honda VTEC's use an NGK which is way superior to the Bosch unit. > > > >Is this a wide range sensor, and which models/engines used it? > > Yes, it is wide range, and very quick response. VTEC engines. Honda part # > is in archives within last 10 weeks or so. Controlling it is not a simple > matter. > Jobber cost from Honda is in $110 USD range. > > Regards, Greg > > >Thanks, > >Mike V ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:52:01 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? - -----Original Message----- From: Roger Heflin To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 1:23 AM Subject: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Don't lock the TCC under full throttle!. The TCC is much softer than the other clutches in the tranny to prevent it from chattering. I've gone thru 4 or so tranny overhauls in my 700R4. Last guy said ditch the TCC, and you'll never break it again. Well put 50,000 on it, and it's still alive. Cording to him what kills the 700's 4L60's is the TCC fllaking off and contaninating the fluid, and at a microscopic level, getting embedded in the other clutches, and then they fail so like the 3-4 clutch problem is really caused by the TCC. I will admit, that I'm hell on trannies, with all the calibration testing I was doing, but going to a non-lock up converter was the best tranny money I've spent. If you don't drive hard often, or mileage is your primary concern ignore the above. Also, comparing the 700 to the GN 200 isn't a good comapro in my book. The 200 as installed in a stock gn is light years ahead of stock 700, in my opinion. Very early in the gn program, it was looked at to haul 4 guys with misc hardware at WOT in pursuit situations. The 700 was never really successful at that, from what I've seen/heard. Bruce >Ok, > >I have pretty much disassembled and deciphered the TCC lockup code, >and I feel I can add some code for a TCC lockup scheme, but I don't >want to go to the trouble of adding it if it won't help. > >Without code changes (only data) > >The current lockup occurs at 95 mph, which is way down in my rpm range for my engine, >about 4400 before lockup, 4000 after lookup. I am going to change this so that it locks >up just before the end of the 1/4, somewhere around 105 or so. > >No code change required for this: >The second choice is to lock it up at say 76 in second gear and let it stayed locked >through 3rd also. > >Here is the scheme that requires code adjustment: > >The third choice is to lock it at 76 in 2nd, unlock it in the lower rpms in 3rd and lock >it back up just before the end of the quarter in 3rd. The idea is to get the engine more >quickly through the lower rpms, >and lock the converter at the best moment to keep things around the >power band. 76 mph in 2nd puts me just a bit higher than my HP peak. The locking before >the end of the 1/4 is because the car lurches pretty hard when the convertor locks, and >currently after it lurchs the engine hits low rpms and more slowly accelerates. > >I know the GN guys had some schemes, are they similar to what I have and which one worked >the best? > >I am also considering more serious code changes, such as adjustments to allow less fuel to >be injected in 1st and 2nd to get a more optimal mixture. > > Roger > ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:17:39 -0700 Subject: Re: Photo Radar >On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, jq wrote: > >> uh guyz. >> >> check w/ u'r state to see if altering u'r >> license plate is illegal. >> >> over here even obsuring it w/ a bike rack is >> grounds for a ticket. >> >Yes it is, but the numbskulls dont enforce it. They just announced it with >lotsa PR and then ran and hid. Its "invisible" to the police... > >They are also BSing on the plastic plate covers, too. I got some seized >and when I set a court date, they "elected not to prosecute" political >correctness is sure confusing... And you didn't even have to wear high heels to court to get them to back off?? Greg ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:27:02 -0700 Subject: Re: MTBE in gas, fuel line deterioration >Hi everyone, > >A wise-sounding fellow on another list was saying that MTBE in certain >pump gasolines can cause over-rapid deterioration of rubber fuel lines >in some older cars. (And that the MTBE was used to meet some relatively >new emissions-related legal requirements, say within the past few years. >Also I think this applied to California, and perhaps some other states, >but not necessarily to all states.) He further claimed a ~30% increase >in engine bay fires in the time period covered. > >So what I'm wondering is, should I worry that today's pump gas might >eat up rubber fuel lines extra quick? Would this only apply to "older" >cars, and if so, how old would "older" be? 10 years, 20 years? > >Anyway it seemed like if this was a genuine issue, it'd be a pretty >serious thing, and worth some preemptive part replacement. > > Thanks, > Chris C. My IMPRESSION has been that MBTE was an additive-used instead of ethanal--in areas where "oxygenated" fuels have been mandated as an emissions band-aid--such as the Denver area in the winter time. Supposedly, the extra oxygen in the fuel would make vehicles typically run leaner under conditions (combination of high altitude and cold weather in Denver) which would make them run rich. Since Denver's problem was high CO, this approach was the collective "wisdom" of the EPA parasites. The mandate first began when carburetted cars were the norm. The parasitic numbskulls have never figured out that vehicles with inlet air tract temp compensation and HEGO sensors have obsoleted their supposed "wisdom". Liddy Pineapple for Pres--Yeah, sure. Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:45:04 -0500 Subject: 749 calibration in a 730 Well, after finding some faulty hardware, I got the syclone calibration to run in a 730 ecm. Doing so moved some pinouts about, for TCC, and VSS, but it is seen by diacom, and things look ok. I haven't attempted to make this a legal calibration, so I'm ignoring the air management valves, and EGR for now, but all the engine stuff looks to be running right, and TCC works. I'll post a summary later today/tomorrow, but just had to babble/brag a bit about it........ Bruce When sharper Cone Shaped Hats are worn, it'll be done here first......... ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:49:22 -0500 Subject: PWMETER Has anyone built it?. If I send the funds would someone buy/burn/program the chip for me?. What display should I get?. Is backlite "better"? If this is rambling, please write me off list. Thanks Bruce nacelp@xxx.net ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:41:57 -0700 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? >Ok, > >I have pretty much disassembled and deciphered the TCC lockup code, >and I feel I can add some code for a TCC lockup scheme, but I don't >want to go to the trouble of adding it if it won't help. > >Without code changes (only data) > >The current lockup occurs at 95 mph, which is way down in my rpm range for >my engine, >about 4400 before lockup, 4000 after lookup. I am going to change this so >that it locks >up just before the end of the 1/4, somewhere around 105 or so. > >No code change required for this: >The second choice is to lock it up at say 76 in second gear and let it >stayed locked >through 3rd also. > >Here is the scheme that requires code adjustment: > >The third choice is to lock it at 76 in 2nd, unlock it in the lower rpms >in 3rd and lock >it back up just before the end of the quarter in 3rd. The idea is to get >the engine more >quickly through the lower rpms, >and lock the converter at the best moment to keep things around the >power band. 76 mph in 2nd puts me just a bit higher than my HP peak. The >locking before >the end of the 1/4 is because the car lurches pretty hard when the >convertor locks, and >currently after it lurchs the engine hits low rpms and more slowly accelerates. > >I know the GN guys had some schemes, are they similar to what I have and >which one worked >the best? > >I am also considering more serious code changes, such as adjustments to >allow less fuel to >be injected in 1st and 2nd to get a more optimal mixture. > > Roger I've been sorta lurking, reading the thread you have been talking about. Now a couple of unsolicited comments on things you might want to consider. If you are going to lock up the converter in 3rd, or whatever, and leave it locked, you might want to consider whether there is some way to unlock it briefly during the upshift, if it does not do this already on its own. Both the tranny and the rear end will last a lot longer if it is unlocked during shifts. There is not much question that you will get more net power to the wheels with the converter locked--if the engine is up into its power band. So mebbe you want to think about a shorter rear axle ratio and locking it up sooner rather than locking it up later. Of course, this might also require more tire so as to avoid sitting at the starting line enveloped in a cloud of smoke! Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:47:02 -0700 Subject: Re: Good work Greg.. >Greg Hermann wrote: > >> The header will see the gap in >> the pipe as an open end for pulse tuning. I SUSPECT that such a plenum may >> even work better than an open pipe terminated at the same length as where >> the first cut is. > >Take a set of headers and add extensions to the collectors of the same size (3 >1/2) and lightly spray the extensions with cheap black paint. Make a couple of >hard passes and the paint will change color at the point they should be cut >off. This may also work to find the location of the plenum chamber. Engines >sound different when extensions are trimmed like described. Tom Sounds (pardon the pun) good to me Tom--nothing like simple , available, and to the point!! (in many parts of life!) Good one! Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:49:57 -0700 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? > >Regarding the TCC, the only thing I'd be careful of is engaging the clutch >too soon and plowing the maximum engine torque through it. Most TCCs aren't >designed to handle the full torque of the stock engine let alone the torque >of a modified motor and may be damaged if locked too soon. > >I thought this was a problem for the GN crowd some time back where chips >were engaging the clutch to reduce driveline slippage (and thus get better >ETs/MPH) but the price was wasted converters after only a few runs... Betcha they were not unlocking it during shifts--- Regards, Greg > >-- >Mike ------------------------------ From: trinity@xxx.net (Mike) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 10:42:55 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? > >> >>Regarding the TCC, the only thing I'd be careful of is engaging the clutch >>too soon and plowing the maximum engine torque through it. Most TCCs aren't >>designed to handle the full torque of the stock engine let alone the torque >>of a modified motor and may be damaged if locked too soon. >> >>I thought this was a problem for the GN crowd some time back where chips >>were engaging the clutch to reduce driveline slippage (and thus get better >>ETs/MPH) but the price was wasted converters after only a few runs... > > >Betcha they were not unlocking it during shifts--- > >Regards, Greg That, or it was because the breathed-on 3.8s are making 500+ ft-lbs of torque and it was all being channeled through the puny (and probably stock) TCC :) - -- Mike ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:47:03 EST Subject: Re: 749 calibration in a 730 Bruce, Sounds very cool.. Are we talking about 730 turbo development program? They sure are easier to locate than the Syclone 749.. Did you do this in a 256k EPROM? Just curious Mike V. In a message dated 1/9/99 9:45:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, nacelp@xxx.net writes: > Well, after finding some faulty hardware, I got the syclone calibration > to run in a 730 ecm. Doing so moved some pinouts about, for TCC, > and VSS, but it is seen by diacom, and things look ok. I haven't > attempted to make this a legal calibration, so I'm ignoring the > air management valves, and EGR for now, but all the engine stuff > looks to be running right, and TCC works. > I'll post a summary later today/tomorrow, but just had to babble/brag a > bit about it........ > Bruce When sharper Cone Shaped Hats are worn, it'll be done > here first......... ------------------------------ From: CEIJR@xxx.com Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:52:48 EST Subject: Re: Water Injection Thread & CorvEight I also had a Valkyrie, with stout 327. Learned a lot about brake balance, spring rates, etc., sometimes very suddenly. The Fiberfab supplied kit to mate the 327 to the front of the '66 and later Corvair transaxle was either manufactured by Ted Trevor's Crown Engineering, or copied from it directly. The cover plate and front input shaft certainly looked the same. The '65 transaxle wasn't nearly as strong. Crown also provided a kit to put two more spider gears in the differential carrier. I ran autocrosses with stock carrier, and only blew one set of the two-spider setup - on a downshift, not on acceleration. Mid-engine Corvair conversions were generally better than rear, but the BOP 215 aluminum v-8, with reverse rotation, made a pretty good rear-engine installation. Strangest Corvair conversion? A front-engine installation of a 12 cylinder Jaguar. Charlie Iliff ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 11:11:19 EST Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? I too have a few toasted convertors from "the switch"... Lots of GM drag lizards (myself included) rely on the lockup switch for slight ET improvements. If you rig a switch to ground the ALDL TCC line, the convertor locks in any gear, but 1st. It feels like an extra shift occurrs just after the trans goes into second.. Wierd feeling.. There is also an override that unlocks the convetor if the brake is applied. This mod should not be done with engines of serious power levels and stock style convertors. These numbers are vague, but GNs in the low 12's or so, and Syphoons in approx high 12's tend to smoke the clutches. Convertors sometimes last a season, sometimes less. There are some HD aftermarket lock-up convertors with multi-disc packs, that are turning 10's, but they are so tough that they are breaking input shafts on when lockup occurs after the 1-2 shift. After you get down into the 9's the trans of choice appears to be the old reliable TH-400 3 spd with a non-lockup convertor. Opinions are very mixed on the use of lock-ups for racing, and the above approximations my be off in someones opinion too. I can honestly say, that when the clutch is working properly, using the lock-up switch results in only 10-15 hundreths of a second in my mid 12 sec truck. Kind of an expensive trade-off. Cheers, Mike V ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 10:47:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Water Injection Thread - -> > A 350 won't fit in the rear of a Corvair, it's too long. A friend - -> just > put a 4.3 in the rear, and it was a tight fit. Yes, he built - -> a reverse > rotation engine for it. > Never say never. It might not be too desireable to do, but I have > seen it done. a 327 not a 350 not that that makes any dimensional > difference... John De Armond, former moderator of the hotrod@xxx.com mailing list, reminesced several times about a former coworker who had a *396* Chevy rear-mounted in his Corvair. It was his daily driver. ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:13:40 -0500 Subject: Memcal ID Anyone show a listing for a 4892 BHRJ, er what application it's for. How about a BDKC 4895?. The BDKC should be around 93-4 Bruce ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:13:13 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? At 08:52 AM 1/9/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Don't lock the TCC under full throttle!. >The TCC is much softer than the other clutches in the tranny to prevent it >from chattering. I've gone thru 4 or so tranny overhauls in my 700R4. Last >guy said ditch the TCC, and you'll never break it again. Well put 50,000 >on it, and it's still alive. Cording to him what kills the 700's 4L60's is >the >TCC fllaking off and contaninating the fluid, and at a microscopic level, >getting embedded in the other clutches, and then they fail so like the 3-4 >clutch problem is really caused by the TCC. I will admit, that I'm hell on >trannies, >with all the calibration testing I was doing, but going to a non-lock up >converter was the best tranny money I've spent. If you don't drive hard >often, or mileage is your primary concern ignore the above. > Also, comparing the 700 to the GN 200 isn't a good comapro in my book. >The 200 as installed in a stock gn is light years ahead of stock 700, in >my opinion. Very early in the gn program, it was looked at to haul 4 >guys with misc hardware at WOT in pursuit situations. The 700 was >never really successful at that, from what I've seen/heard. > Bruce Bruce, The trans guy is dead wrong. The GN 200-4R trans was a beefed version of the Auto OD trans slated to go behind a normally aspirated 160HP V6... Buick had to do some fancy dancing to get turbohydramatic to allow them to put the trans behind the turbo 6. I had a non-intercooled 85 Buick T-Type, only 200HP and fried 9 transmissions, including snapping off the input shaft on one at 80,000 miles. It was never designed to be used for extended High HP functions... (racing!) The 700-R4 wasn't used because it would have taken a new case with the proper bellhousing bolt pattern... it was a chevy/corporate bolt pattern. Of all the GN's racing, the guys are running lock up converters, and locking them up at WOT until they get into the 11 second bracket with no problems...But the trans they use is a MUCH modified version of the stock GN trans. After that they go to the non-lockup 9 inch converters for higher stall speed and no lock up is used only because the 9" has no room for a clutch to handle the HP. The factory lockup converter is a piece of junk that comes apart, but the aftermarket Torque converters with lockup are lightyears ahead of the factory parts. There are a few GN's with 700's installed that used adapter plates and they are really happy with the combo... No internal trans mods (except the governor weights/springs to get the trans to shift at the proper points for the turbo-6) and they are running in the 11's The 700 trans is strong enough to be used behind some very healthy V8's with lockup without any mods but a trans cooler (external). The problems that arise is if the TCC solenoid becomes plugged. then the TCC slips and will destroy itself... this happens in any trans with TCC. Not sure where you're located, but the best person to ask about the 200-4R and the 700-R4 is Mike Kurtz at PMAC in Houston, TX. He's had the 200-4R living in 9 second cars!... I had asked him about the 700 for my buick and he said it wasn't necessary unless I really got up in the HP... =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:27:54 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? At 07:49 AM 1/9/99 -0700, you wrote: > >> >>Regarding the TCC, the only thing I'd be careful of is engaging the clutch >>too soon and plowing the maximum engine torque through it. Most TCCs aren't >>designed to handle the full torque of the stock engine let alone the torque >>of a modified motor and may be damaged if locked too soon. >> >>I thought this was a problem for the GN crowd some time back where chips >>were engaging the clutch to reduce driveline slippage (and thus get better >>ETs/MPH) but the price was wasted converters after only a few runs... > Actually, the only ones having problems were the ones with a LOT of engine mods and a bone stock trans/TC. > >Betcha they were not unlocking it during shifts--- > Even the majority of them with transmissions that didn't break under WOT lock weren't unlocking them at the shift... They use a toggle switch from pin F of the ALDL connector to ground Later, Dave =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: Jim Davies Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:51:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Photo Radar On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Greg Hermann wrote: > >They are also BSing on the plastic plate covers, too. I got some seized > >and when I set a court date, they "elected not to prosecute" political > >correctness is sure confusing... > > And you didn't even have to wear high heels to court to get them to back off?? > No...really. When I went to change the appearance date I saw the PC charge was not on the sheet, so I asked, they checked and then told me the Tax-n-Spenders had decided "not to proceed" with the charge. Of course, now the governemnt do-gooders are off righting wrongs elsewhere... ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:03:42 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? - -----Original Message----- From: David A. Cooley To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 12:24 PM Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? >At 08:52 AM 1/9/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Don't lock the TCC under full throttle!. >>The TCC is much softer than the other clutches in the tranny to prevent it >>from chattering. I've gone thru 4 or so tranny overhauls in my 700R4. Last >>guy said ditch the TCC, and you'll never break it again. Well put 50,000 >>on it, and it's still alive. Cording to him what kills the 700's 4L60's is >>the >>TCC fllaking off and contaninating the fluid, and at a microscopic level, >>getting embedded in the other clutches, and then they fail so like the 3-4 >>clutch problem is really caused by the TCC. I will admit, that I'm hell on >>trannies, >>with all the calibration testing I was doing, but going to a non-lock up >>converter was the best tranny money I've spent. If you don't drive hard >>often, or mileage is your primary concern ignore the above. >> Also, comparing the 700 to the GN 200 isn't a good comapro in my book. >>The 200 as installed in a stock gn is light years ahead of stock 700, in >>my opinion. Very early in the gn program, it was looked at to haul 4 >>guys with misc hardware at WOT in pursuit situations. The 700 was >>never really successful at that, from what I've seen/heard. >> Bruce > >Bruce, >The trans guy is dead wrong. Then explain why his tranny is working long after the others would have failed. >The GN 200-4R trans was a beefed version of the Auto OD trans slated to go >behind a normally aspirated 160HP V6... Buick had to do some fancy dancing >to get turbohydramatic to allow them to put the trans behind the turbo 6. Yes, and once done was right. The 200R was designed to do a WOT high gear shift, and the 700R took 5 years of deployment to get that. >I had a non-intercooled 85 Buick T-Type, only 200HP and fried 9 >transmissions, including snapping off the input shaft on one at 80,000 miles. I've never heard of a GN thou with that sort of failure rate. >It was never designed to be used for extended High HP functions... (racing!) >The 700-R4 wasn't used because it would have taken a new case with the >proper bellhousing bolt pattern... it was a chevy/corporate bolt pattern. >Of all the GN's racing, the guys are running lock up converters, and >locking them up at WOT until they get into the 11 second bracket with no >problems... And most are trailer queens at that stage. Or of limited street use. I'm talking street car, not race car/trailer queen stuff. But the trans they use is a MUCH modified version of the stock >GN trans. After that they go to the non-lockup 9 inch converters for >higher stall speed and no lock up is used only because the 9" has no room >for a clutch to handle the HP. The factory lockup converter is a piece of >junk that comes apart, but the aftermarket Torque converters with lockup >are lightyears ahead of the factory parts. There are a few GN's with 700's >installed that used adapter plates and they are really happy with the >combo... No internal trans mods (except the governor weights/springs to get >the trans to shift at the proper points for the turbo-6) and they are >running in the 11's An 11 sec GN with a stock other than govenor 700R, I would have to see, to beleive. > >The 700 trans is strong enough to be used behind some very healthy V8's >with lockup without any mods but a trans cooler (external). Then why at 300HP did I start killing them so often, and then deleting the TCC instantly it lived. >The problems that arise is if the TCC solenoid becomes plugged. then the >TCC slips and will destroy itself... this happens in any trans with TCC. I'd had mine out several times, and appart and never saw any evidence of even an accumulation of anything there. I still stand by what I said, to avoid failures, don't lock it at WOT, or run a non TCC converter, period. Bruce > >Not sure where you're located, but the best person to ask about the 200-4R >and the 700-R4 is Mike Kurtz at PMAC in Houston, TX. >He's had the 200-4R living in 9 second cars!... I had asked him about the >700 for my buick and he said it wasn't necessary unless I really got up in >the HP... >=========================================================== > David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net > Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 > I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. >=========================================================== > ------------------------------ From: bob@xxx.com (Robert Harris) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 18:19:46 GMT Subject: Stepper Motors Any clues for sources of inexpensive 12VDC small stepper motors ( but bigger than those used in hard drives). I think I may have a need if they are reasonable in power, speed and price. Thanks. The Luddites were RIGHT!! Habaneros - not just for breakfast anymore ------------------------------ From: Clarence Wood Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:55:54 -0600 Subject: Heat sink compound vs. dialectic A salesperson at AutoZone tried to sell me some heat sink compound stating that it was a dialectic. Of course I challenged the statement and he told me that he had used heat sink compound to insure good connections. Is heat sink compound a dialectic? Curious minds want to know! IZCC #3426 1982 280ZX Turbo GL 1966 El Camino 1982 Yamaha Maxim XJ-1101J Motorcycle 1975 Honda CB750 SS (black engine) 1986 Snapper Comet lawn mower Clarence Wood Software&Such... clarencewood@xxx.net Savannah, TN. ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:01:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Mike wrote: > Regarding the TCC, the only thing I'd be careful of is engaging the clutch > too soon and plowing the maximum engine torque through it. Most TCCs aren't > designed to handle the full torque of the stock engine let alone the torque > of a modified motor and may be damaged if locked too soon. > > I thought this was a problem for the GN crowd some time back where chips > were engaging the clutch to reduce driveline slippage (and thus get better > ETs/MPH) but the price was wasted converters after only a few runs... > Mine stock already locks the TCC under WOT. At 95 mph it locks the TCC no matter what, and so far I have not burned my TCC clutches out. I am also willing to buy one of those multiclutch converters that are supposed to survive this sort of abuse. I already have one of the Viligantie convertors, but the stock programming locked the TCC at WOT already, which I thought was supposed to destroy the convertors anyway, and so far has not (over 140 1/4 runs, 116k on tranny). Roger ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:07:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Bruce Plecan wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Heflin > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> > Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 1:23 AM > Subject: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? > > Don't lock the TCC under full throttle!. > The TCC is much softer than the other clutches in the tranny to prevent it > from chattering. I've gone thru 4 or so tranny overhauls in my 700R4. Last > guy said ditch the TCC, and you'll never break it again. Well put 50,000 > on it, and it's still alive. Cording to him what kills the 700's 4L60's is > the > TCC fllaking off and contaninating the fluid, and at a microscopic level, > getting embedded in the other clutches, and then they fail so like the 3-4 > clutch problem is really caused by the TCC. I will admit, that I'm hell on > trannies, > with all the calibration testing I was doing, but going to a non-lock up > converter was the best tranny money I've spent. If you don't drive hard > often, or mileage is your primary concern ignore the above. > Also, comparing the 700 to the GN 200 isn't a good comapro in my book. > The 200 as installed in a stock gn is light years ahead of stock 700, in > my opinion. Very early in the gn program, it was looked at to haul 4 > guys with misc hardware at WOT in pursuit situations. The 700 was > never really successful at that, from what I've seen/heard. > Bruce Do you have any idea what that "chattering" sounds like? I have a high perf aftermarket and it makes odd noises sometimes that might be described as chattering. Also the company that I got the converter from makes multiclucth TCC to survive the lockup at WOT. I wonder if the aftermarket torque convertors use a much tougher clutch? I have had the aftermarket convertor for most of my cars life (70k or more). Roger ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 19:03:07 +0000 Subject: Re: Stepper Motors > Any clues for sources of inexpensive 12VDC small stepper motors ( but bigger > than those used in hard drives). I think I may have a need if they are > reasonable in power, speed and price. Printers, IAC motors from the junkyard, older tape drives, some VCR head steppers are 12V (but only rotate in one direction, step it the other way they just hum), any old audio tape drive made by Otari, CDROM motors (5V, but feel free to make a simple power supply), many of the surplus companies, www.eio.com, Mouser Electronics, sometimes even Digikey to name a few. - -- Frederic Breitwieser Bridgeport, CT 06606 http://www.xephic.dynip.com 1993 Supercharged Lincoln Continental 1989 500cid Turbocharged HWMMV 1975 Dodge D200 Club Cab 2000 Buick GTP (V6 twin turbo) ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:12:47 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? > > I've been sorta lurking, reading the thread you have been talking about. > Now a couple of unsolicited comments on things you might want to consider. > > If you are going to lock up the converter in 3rd, or whatever, and leave it > locked, you might want to consider whether there is some way to unlock it > briefly during the upshift, if it does not do this already on its own. Both > the tranny and the rear end will last a lot longer if it is unlocked during > shifts. > If I rig it to detect 2nd gear, lock a say 75, and then unlock in 3rd below 105, it should unlock pretty quickly while it is shifting. That also worried me, especially when I noticed there was code to unlock things when a 4-3,4-2 downshift was occuring. I think though this is only an issue above 95 mph (that is where it locks no matter what, even at WOT). The problem is my powerband is pretty high, so I want to unlock it to speed it through the non-powerband area. Then it more a question of messing around to determine the optimal speed to lock it. > There is not much question that you will get more net power to the wheels > with the converter locked--if the engine is up into its power band. So > mebbe you want to think about a shorter rear axle ratio and locking it up > sooner rather than locking it up later. Of course, this might also require > more tire so as to avoid sitting at the starting line enveloped in a cloud > of smoke! I have enough tire for job. So that is not really an issue. > > Regards, Greg > > > ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:23:00 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Bruce Plecan wrote: > > Then why at 300HP did I start killing them so often, and then deleting > the TCC instantly it lived. > I am running over 300 hp (365hp), and the stock computer has been locking it at wot (95mph) for over a year, and at 300hp for a year before that and I have not (yet) had any problems, but I do have an aftermerket convertor that could potentitally be alot harder than any of the stock convertors. > >The problems that arise is if the TCC solenoid becomes plugged. then the > >TCC slips and will destroy itself... this happens in any trans with TCC. > > I'd had mine out several times, and appart and never saw any > evidence of even an accumulation of anything there. > > I still stand by what I said, to avoid failures, don't lock it at WOT, or > run a non TCC converter, period. GM by default locks the 4th gen A4 at wot. It is at a different speed on the 93's than the 95+ cars but, I would hope that had tested this sort of thing enough to know how long it would last, maybe I just got a good tranny, mine is past 115k on a high hp engine, with only a shift kit and better higher slip torque convertor added. Roger ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:31:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Heat sink compound vs. dialectic On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Clarence Wood wrote: > A salesperson at AutoZone tried to sell me some heat sink > compound stating that it was a dialectic. Of course I challenged > the statement and he told me that he had used heat sink compound to > insure good connections. > Is heat sink compound a dialectic? Curious minds want to know! A diaelectric is an insulator. It does not maintain a good connection, that is the whole idea. Using heat sink compound to insure a good connection would be really bad. Most heat sinks the case is ground and you want it to have a good connection with ground, dielectric is supposed to not maintain a good connection. Of course if most of the people he was selling it to are using it in the spark plug boots I really don't see it making that much of a difference. In the books I have the insulating material in a capacitor is called a dielectric so that would lead me to believe that dielectric grease was non-conduction. Roger ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:50:35 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? - -----Original Message----- From: Roger Heflin To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 2:20 PM Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Bruce Plecan wrote: >> From: Roger Heflin >> Subject: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? >> Don't lock the TCC under full throttle!. >> The TCC is much softer than the other clutches in the tranny to prevent it >> from chattering. I've gone thru 4 or so tranny overhauls in my 700R4. Last >> guy said ditch the TCC, and you'll never break it again. Well put 50,000 >> on it, and it's still alive. Cording to him what kills the 700's 4L60's is >> the >> TCC fllaking off and contaninating the fluid, and at a microscopic level, >> getting embedded in the other clutches, and then they fail so like the 3-4 >> clutch problem is really caused by the TCC. I will admit, that I'm hell on >> trannies, >> with all the calibration testing I was doing, but going to a non-lock up >> converter was the best tranny money I've spent. If you don't drive hard >> often, or mileage is your primary concern ignore the above. >> Also, comparing the 700 to the GN 200 isn't a good comapro in my book. >> The 200 as installed in a stock gn is light years ahead of stock 700, in >> my opinion. Let me clarify a point here, while I might be wrong when I refer to GN I'm addressing the 86-87 Intercooled ones. I'll in the future to write GNX, and then everone will be clearer about which ones I refer to. Very early in the gn program, it was looked at to haul 4 >> guys with misc hardware at WOT in pursuit situations. The 700 was >> never really successful at that, from what I've seen/heard. >> Bruce > >Do you have any idea what that "chattering" sounds like? Momentary vibration, sometimes felt, sometimes heard. I have a >high perf aftermarket and it makes odd noises sometimes that might be >described as chattering. If strong enough to live at 300 for even a while, it's got harder clutch linings in it, and it will tend to chatter. Also the company that I got the converter >from makes multiclucth TCC to survive the lockup at WOT. I wonder if >the aftermarket torque convertors use a much tougher clutch? Yes, they have to. Also, remember all these plates to add area, probably are adding some weight. Then also displacing fluid from the converter, so it's subject to even more heat, all in all I don't see any really good answers, and like I said my is living in it's current form. For the money, and time for replacing converters when they fail to get a .1, I'd dig some weight out, and worry more about details in tuning. I have >had the aftermarket convertor for most of my cars life (70k or more). What kind of ET's are you running, and how do you plan on going?. Bruce > > Roger > ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #23 **************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi".