DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 13 March 1999 Volume 04 : Number 166 In this issue: Re: Off Panhard bar Re: Off Panhard bar Re: Off Panhard bar Bosch pump # Re: [M] Alterpower alternator charging control switch Re: Chassis dynos exposed Re: Off Panhard bar Re: Real HP loss numbers Re: Bosch Fuel Pump Re: Chassis dynos exposed Re: [M] Alterpower alternator charging control switch Re: Off Panhard bar Re: Re:hp loss Re: Off Panhard bar Re: [M] Alterpower alternator charging control switch Re: How easy would it be to swap a 4L60e for a 4L80e Re: Off Panhard bar Re: Off Panhard bar Fuel tuning... Re: Fuel tuning... Re: Off Panhard bar Re: hp loss Re: Fuel tuning... Re: Chassis dynos exposed RE: Fuel tuning... Re: Fuel tuning... exhaust system idea Re: Chassis dynos exposed See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "H. J. Zivnak" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 13:45:38 -0800 Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar - -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Plecan To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 1:11 PM Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar > >-----Original Message----- >From: H. J. Zivnak >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 3:40 PM >Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar > >What's not symmetrical about the triangle?. Or are you assuming the >Triangle is >mounted off center?. >Bruce > > Hi Bruce, I meant the a arm was mounted off center. Greg said it was to the left of the pumpkin. (Unless, we're talking other than an equilateral triangle. Then the triangle is asymmetrical ;<) ) Joe ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:15:34 -0600 Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar H. J. Zivnak wrote: > > > This could be improved by placing the joint in the center below the pumpkin, > providing symmetry and lowering the roll center, or better yet , replacing > the a-arm with two angled arms and eliminating the need for a high strength > joint. You forgot to account for the torque reaction..... ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:25:52 -0600 Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar Gary Derian wrote: > There is nothing wrong with a high roll center on a live axle. 10-4 > Having an A arm locating the rear axle like the old Alfas works pretty well. > Having it offset a little actually compensates for the torque reaction of > the axle. The first generation Mazda RX-7 had an offset Watts linkage which > worked pretty well. If you offset the torque rod proportionally with the axle ratio, the left/right torqe reaction will cancel and the car will react more neutrally, especially if a little softly sprung, and you won't need a positraction (put one in anyway). It is also easier throttle steer turning left and right if it's neutral. The angles from the side determine anti squat and weight xfer - just look at any drag car 4-link. W even tried a three link (two low and a high offset pull rod) with a jacobs ladder panhard.. Good luck Tom ------------------------------ From: Jason Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:21:32 -0800 Subject: Bosch pump # Just to supplement some part number info, an inline Bosch unit from an '84 VW GTi works well when used as a booster pump for forced-induction applications. Bosch inline hi-pressure fuel pump # 0 580 254 957. Jason '93 SLC ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:31:17 -0600 Subject: Re: [M] Alterpower alternator charging control switch Clarence L.Snyder wrote: > As for power loss due to reduced voltage, that, my friend is a red > herring. If your battery cannot maintain 12 volts for at least 10 > minutes with a 10-15 amp draw (remember, no alt field) you better get a > new battery. Dragsters run with no alt at all - just the battery, even > with big MSD boxes - and they use piddly little batteries. They usually run magnetos and don't run high pressure electric fuel pumps. No one with a roundy rounder runs total loss, only drahsters can get by with that. PS If I need that last 1/2 HP, I'm in the wrong class. ------------------------------ From: Jason Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:39:01 -0800 Subject: Re: Chassis dynos exposed Daniel wrote: <> I'm not marketing anything. Did I mention I was a Mustang Dyno sales rep or something? I don't think so. I use an old water-brake Clayton load type dyno, FYI. I'm not knocking down other dynos, in terms of name brands. I simply offered some general information about chassis dnynamometer types, and a little insight for the avergage enthusiast to gain some knowledge from. I'd bet 75% of this list has never even seen a chassis dyno in person, let alone tune a car on one. I'd even go so far to say that the same percentage of list members did not know the types of chassis dynos or how they actually work. My post was an informational soap box post, you know...archive type info. I was hoping to clarify that there is a distinction when somebody uses the general term "chassis dyno". Now, some of the list members that learned a little from my post can ask some fundamental questions when confronted with tuner claims of "Bolt-on 100hp...dyno proven!". Hope this clears up any misconceptions about my posting intentions. Then remarks: << All dynos are good, whether chassis, engine, or, as in the case of my former vertible stang, "car mounted".>> I agree 100%. They are an essential tool for developing new technology, or re-engineering existing technology. Without them, life would be pretty slow. Now, back to my old Clayton dyno... Jason '93 SLC ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 15:43:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar > >>Or go scrounging in a boneyard that has some old Alfas. They used an upper >>triangle, with two pivot points on the chassis, and a BALL joint attached >>just to the left side of the pumpkin, plus two lower trailing arms. >>Particularly if you replaced the chassis pivots of the triangle (rubber >>stock) with bronze on steel, also if you replaced the lower rod ends with >>real rod ends, they were as NICE a live rear axle setup as you could want. > >(Lurk mode off) > >It's nice to have something to say ! > >I disagree. Well--If I still had a 101 Alfa set up the way the one I had was, plus modern wheels & tires, I doubt that you could come up with anything that would touch it for handling, let alone with a live axle, It went to the 1 g ballpark with E-70 x14 Goodrich's on 14x6 Borrani Mags about 28 years ago. The pumpkin was pretty narrow, as it was an aluminium center section, and came apart the way the old Timken truck axles do--with a big flange on one of the inner end of one of the axle tubes. The center point of the ball joint was only mebbe 3 --4 inches above the centerline of the axle shafts, and mebbe only 3 inches off the centerline of the car--not perfect, but not bad. The later , 105 series, Alfas had a much wider base for the triangle, with the ends out to about where "frame rails" were, but a rubber bush replaced the ball joint. A racing option for the 105 cars did exactly what you are pushing for--had a sliding block that ran up and down in a slot in a truss behind the rear axle , and pivoted on a pin which was located dead center, side to side, and near the bottom of the pumpkin. Lowered the rear roll center about 6 or 8 inches from the standard set-up. Which was the deal that allowed the pictures of Horst Kwech in his Trans-Am GTA lifting his inside FRONT wheel on a LOT of corners. > >Any assymmetry of the linkage will cause the car to react differently in >right hand turns than it does in left hand turns. Secondly, because the >A-arm is above the axle, and it determines the roll center heighth, the roll >center is high. In addition, since the a-arm components must absorb all >cornering forces they are subjected to extreme stress, hence the ball >joint. All true, but I am here to tell you, barely noticeable in practice! And, the high stress on the two front bushings of the narrower base triangle is why it did so much good to replace them with bronze on steel pivots. And, the ball joint was the same part that Alfa used for the lower arm front ball joints--it came apart, you could set the clearance in it with steel shims, and it was BIGGER than the lower joint ball in a late '60's 3/4 Ton Chebby! On a 2100 lb car, needless to say, they did NOT wear out--in fact all the suspension joints on those cars were stout to the point that they were more likely to seize than wear if you did not keep them greased!!! Not only that, I think that you would get nearly unanimous opinion from people who KNOW live axle sports car handling, that Alfa had it as right as it ever got had! The low unsprung weight at the CENTE of the housing, due to the use of aluminium had a LOT to do with how well they did on rough surfaces, of course. And this comment doesn't even touch on the sensitivities of the rice-boys who would prolly still hate to admit that SCCA did favors for Datsun just as NASCAR has done favors for Ford--after all the Datsun Trans-Am cars were IRS! > >>Another very nice set-up was the old Rover 2000 Di Dion setup--instead of a >>lateral link, they used half shafts with no slip joint, upper and lower >>arms on each side, and a slip joint in the Di Dion tube. > >Huh? > >Am I missing something here? I've read this three times and it still doesn't >make sense. YES, you are--BUT--here's what--- - --the upper AND lower arms on each side were both longitudinal, not lateral! I thought that this would be obvious, but I shall try to write more carefully in the future. The (non-plunging) half shafts were the ONLY lateral locating element to the Rover 2000 suspension--and , yes, the slip joint in the Di Dion tube was free to twist as well as to slide in and out! And, yes, there was anti-squat/anti jack built into the geometry of the longitudinal arms on each side. >of articles for National Dragster named Pitside with (you guessed it) Dave >Morgan and at least one book titled Doorslammers IIRC. Lots of illustrations >of instant center, anti-squat, center of gravity, etc. calculations. Written >for the drag racer, but applicable to a road car also. I think I would rather stick to one of my old texts on the kinematics of machinery than something dumbed down enough to be intelligible to economically significant quantities of drag racers! Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:47:29 -0600 Subject: Re: Real HP loss numbers Clarence L.Snyder wrote: > > So, when someone is talking about a 75hp loss, not all that loss is friction, > > otherwise our drivetrains would glow in the dark! However, much of the loss due > > to momentum is taken up by the engine (more strain), which shows up as heat in > > the coolant and oil. > > > > If my physics are wrong, please correct me. > > OK by me. Just tow a trailer a couple of hours a 70 MPH and roll under neath and grab hold of the pumpkin... it will probably burn you --- so will the transmission. They will run a lot cooler - free hp anyone - with synthetic lubricants in them. I used to tow a trailer with a Bronco. there were spots on the floor near the headers/collectors that would melt your tennis shoe soles, but the tranny, xfer and rr never got over 130 deg. I used to use amsoil gear grease, now I use redline. just my $.02 Tom S ------------------------------ From: "Gary Derian" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 17:50:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Bosch Fuel Pump If you already have an in tank pump, just replace it with the correct version for your new engine. Gary Derian >I'd be interested in your flow analysis Bob. I'm desperately looking for an >in-line fuel pump to use on my 3.1L GM V6 motor. Nothing high performance >but with my engine transplant project, I can't use a stock tank pump. This >Bosch pump sounds like it might work great. > >Mike P. > ------------------------------ From: Daniel Ciobota Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:38:26 -0600 Subject: Re: Chassis dynos exposed Dave Williams wrote: > -> > systems, if at all. They worked by running the car on the dyno, > > > -> loading up the > -> > rollers (usually via a water brake system), and reading the horse > > > -> power number > -> > when the load prevented the engine from accelerating past a > -> > predetermined rpm. > > > That's an engine dyno setup, I've never seen a car dyno of this > type. > > The dynojet type systems have been around for at least three years > > (my earliest chassis dyno runs) > > Three years? Clayton has been making water brake chassis dynos for > well over THIRTY years. I own one. > I was merely making a point that dynojets have been around for more than a year... Daniel ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 17:00:56 -0600 Subject: Re: [M] Alterpower alternator charging control switch Sandy wrote: > If you are looking for someing that is very cool in the alternator space, > check out the stuff from Barnett Engineering. It's a desert topping and a > floor wax...Well almost, it is a water pump with a the pulley that houses > the alternator, gets rid of weight and eliminates that ugly wart that is > always in the way. The only bad thing (well besides the cost) is that it > only can do 32 amps. I would expect much less loss as their is one less set > of bearing, and my favorite thing the weight. > > Sandy I love it too. But boy are they proud of it!!! Tom ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:13:25 -0700 Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar >A DeDion suspension is a dead axle connecting each rear hub. This axle is >located by various rods as is a live axle. The final drive is mounted to >the frame and halfshafts connect to the hubs. The advantage is the >kinematics of a live axle with low unsprung weight. Usually the half shafts >have to change in length to accommodate suspension travel. In the Rover, >the dead axle is allowed to change in length while the halfshafts take the >cornering loads. I guess they thought one plunge joint is cheaper than two. Well-not that the Rover had enough power to make it much of a factor, but the slipjoint in the Di-Dion tube was never bound up by torque. And, per my later explaination, the fixed length halfshafts saved any need for any OTHER lateral locating links at all--so Rover saved a couple of ways. I have often thought that a copy of this set up--done using a big-block Vette center section--would be a VERY GOOD rear suspension for a high powered roadster--something like a Cobra replica--cuzza no torque binding in the rear halfshafts, and nice, predictable, live axle type handling with all that torque, and the bonus of decent behavior in bumpy corners cuzza the low unsprung weight!! > >Having an A arm locating the rear axle like the old Alfas works pretty well. >Having it offset a little actually compensates for the torque reaction of >the axle. Hadn't thought of that, but of course it does. Prolly why the ball joint was on the driver's side of the pumpkin. They also put the battery in the right side of the trunk. And the stresses on the triangle are rather impressive--particularly with a "BIT" of extra power!! It was amazing how much more planted the car felt coming out of corners after replacing the two rubber bushes in the body end of the triangle with bronze bushes! It had a little side to side twitch that disappeared completely after the bushings were in. (Nothing wimpy, either, IIRC, the ID of the bushings was about 1-1/4", mebbe 2-1/2" long each.) And the "extra power" was not too wimpy, either. The 1600 in that car made about 170HP (NA, no juice), and the car would turn low 14's in the 1/4. One of the funnier things it ever did was pull about a 125 YARD hole shot on a 400 Fireturd at a stoplight--The poor guy was tryin' to show off for his girl friend. Don't think he got any that night! Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:17:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Re:hp loss >Of course a hypoid has more friction than a bevel gear but how much? >Viscous drag from the lube also has a great influence and is greater with a >hypoid. I suspect the differences between hypoid and bevel are measurable >but small. > >Gary Derian Well- a hypoid does have sliding contact between the gear teeth, where a bevel, even a spiral bevel does not (all rolling tooth contact with these). So there should be at least a LITTLE more friction in a hypoid. The sliding contact is the whole reason why you need the EP additives in the gear oil for hypoids. Greg > >>> >>>A big factor is the rear axle gearset and especially if it is a hypoid >>>design and also [I think] how much the actual offset is between the ring >>>and pinion centreline; the greater the offset, the longer the pinion tooth >>>becomes, thus increasing friction. I notice spiral bevel gearsets coming >>>back into production and I believe it is because of the greater drag of >>>the hypoid design. >> >>Yep!! >> >>Greg >> ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:30:13 -0700 Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar >Gary Derian wrote: > >> There is nothing wrong with a high roll center on a live axle. > >10-4 > >> Having an A arm locating the rear axle like the old Alfas works pretty well. >> Having it offset a little actually compensates for the torque reaction of >> the axle. The first generation Mazda RX-7 had an offset Watts linkage which >> worked pretty well. > >If you offset the torque rod proportionally with the axle ratio, the left/right >torqe reaction will cancel and the car will react more neutrally, especially if >a little softly sprung, and you won't need a positraction (put one in anyway). >It is also easier throttle steer turning left and right if it's neutral. Right on, Tom--That Alfa would light both rear tires to halfway through second gear, with no posi. Battery in right of trunk (from factory) did not hurt either! No difference in throttle steer to left or right, either. They did do their homework! Greg > >The angles from the side determine anti squat and weight xfer - just look >at any >drag car 4-link. W even tried a three link (two low and a high offset pull rod) >with a jacobs ladder panhard.. > >Good luck Tom ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:32:57 -0700 Subject: Re: [M] Alterpower alternator charging control switch >Clarence L.Snyder wrote: > >> As for power loss due to reduced voltage, that, my friend is a red >> herring. If your battery cannot maintain 12 volts for at least 10 >> minutes with a 10-15 amp draw (remember, no alt field) you better get a >> new battery. Dragsters run with no alt at all - just the battery, even >> with big MSD boxes - and they use piddly little batteries. > > They usually run magnetos and don't run high pressure electric fuel pumps. >No one with a roundy rounder runs total loss, only drahsters can get by >with that. > >PS If I need that last 1/2 HP, I'm in the wrong class. And, let's don't forget what 1 or 2 less volts will surely do to injector opening characteristics!! A hole inna piston will lose a lot more HP and $$ than a damn alternator shut-off will ever gain! Greg ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:53:44 -0500 Subject: Re: How easy would it be to swap a 4L60e for a 4L80e At 01:25 AM 3/13/99 -0700, you wrote: >I just broke the input hub / shaft assembly for the second time on my '95 >Chevy 1/2 ton truck. It keeps blowing out the aluminum lugs that retain >the snap ring for 3rd gear. I do have extra ponies under the hood, but I >don't see how the extra power would be causing this problem. (It's 355 >cubic inches, B&M blower, Air Flow Research Heads, large roller cam, Cola >Crank, Ross Racing Pistons, Eagle Rods, etc etc) The truck only runs in >the low 14's, but this tranny breakage is nuts. > Well, With 3944 LBS and traction problems, your probably running 400+ HP into that 4L60-E... It's barely capable of staying together with the stock Engine... >Either I'm putting too much thru this >tranny, or it's a real piece of crap. > Both! > >P.s. If anyone is interested in my calibrations / chip sw, lemme know, as >I'd be happy to share. I would! Thanks, 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: "H. J. Zivnak" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 15:56:05 -0800 Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar Hello Tom How so? Joe - -----Original Message----- From: Tom Sharpe To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 2:32 PM Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar > > >H. J. Zivnak wrote: > >> >> >> This could be improved by placing the joint in the center below the pumpkin, >> providing symmetry and lowering the roll center, or better yet , replacing >> the a-arm with two angled arms and eliminating the need for a high strength >> joint. > >You forgot to account for the torque reaction..... > ------------------------------ From: "H. J. Zivnak" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:23:03 -0800 Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar Greg, I didn't realize that Alfa was such a warm memory. I really didn't mean to insult it! The responses to Shannen's question looked to me to be missing the dynamics of the situation. The point being that it's prolly the chassis that moves in response to changes in the Panhard rather than the axle, and it's not likely to effect handling, or be felt for that matter. However, get into a situation where you have roll oversteer and that's another story. I guess that if I did ASCII more often I'd prolly get better at it. >>Huh? >> >>Am I missing something here? I've read this three times and it still doesn't >>make sense. > >YES, you are--BUT--here's what--- > >--the upper AND lower arms on each side were both longitudinal, not >lateral! I thought that this would be obvious, but I shall try to write >more carefully in the future. The (non-plunging) half shafts were the ONLY >lateral locating element to the Rover 2000 suspension--and , yes, the slip >joint in the Di Dion tube was free to twist as well as to slide in and out! >And, yes, there was anti-squat/anti jack built into the geometry of the >longitudinal arms on each side. Maybe I'd better look at my heel and see if there are any instructions down there ;<) Regards, Joe ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:29:13 -0500 Subject: Fuel tuning... Hello all, It appears my 95 LeSabre is PIG rich at WOT. Here's what I see just before the 1-2 shift: O2 volts: 927.96mV Coolant Temp: 184.10 Deg F Engine Speed: 5140 RPM LV8: 228 Injector PW: 18.37mS TPS Voltage: 4.32 V Intake Air Temp: 81.50 Deg F Ign. Advance: 24.71 Deg. MAF: 143.63 grams/sec No knock detected, 3.8L V6 running 93 octane. Any suggestions on what to tweak first are welcome! Looking for better acceleration/performance. Thanks, 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: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:56:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Fuel tuning... - -----Original Message----- From: David A. Cooley To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 7:36 PM Subject: Fuel tuning... How ya get the much Pulse width?. Ya saying rich due to O2 voltage?. Or ya do a plug cut?. Bruce >Hello all, >It appears my 95 LeSabre is PIG rich at WOT. >Here's what I see just before the 1-2 shift: >O2 volts: 927.96mV >Coolant Temp: 184.10 Deg F >Engine Speed: 5140 RPM >LV8: 228 >Injector PW: 18.37mS >TPS Voltage: 4.32 V >Intake Air Temp: 81.50 Deg F >Ign. Advance: 24.71 Deg. >MAF: 143.63 grams/sec > >No knock detected, 3.8L V6 running 93 octane. > >Any suggestions on what to tweak first are welcome! >Looking for better acceleration/performance. >Thanks, >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: "H. J. Zivnak" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:55:58 -0800 Subject: Re: Off Panhard bar Hello Gary, Gosh, I post one time in a year and I start a discussion. >There is nothing wrong with a high roll center on a live axle. Of course >the suspension tuning must take this into account. With independent >suspension, a high roll center usually also means high camber change and >track change with wheel travel. This results in jacking in a corner which >is really bad, witness early Corvair rear, early VW Beetle rear, or Bronco >II front. A solid axle has no jacking and is usable with high roll center. I agree a solid axle has no jacking. However, a lower rear roll center will make a car handle more consistently even with a solid axle. Given a choice, I would opt for a low roll center. >A DeDion suspension is a dead axle connecting each rear hub. This axle is >located by various rods as is a live axle. The final drive is mounted to >the frame and halfshafts connect to the hubs. The advantage is the >kinematics of a live axle with low unsprung weight. Usually the half shafts >have to change in length to accommodate suspension travel. In the Rover, >the dead axle is allowed to change in length while the halfshafts take the >cornering loads. I guess they thought one plunge joint is cheaper than two. If the dead axle is allowed to change length, then the axle track dimension (centerline of tire to centerline of other tire) changes with it. If the axle track dimension changes then the tires scrub laterally. Remember, this thread started when Shannen asked about lateral movement of the axle with a Panhard bar. With a Panhard the axle is not likely to move laterally, the body will. In the Rover, at least one tire must scrub. > >Having an A arm locating the rear axle like the old Alfas works pretty well. >Having it offset a little actually compensates for the torque reaction of >the axle. The first generation Mazda RX-7 had an offset Watts linkage which >worked pretty well. ??? An a arm is not a Watts linkage. A Watts linkage resembles a Panhard bar with a bellcrank in the center. The bellcrank should be attached to the chassis and the two rods attached to either end of the axle. The rods are parallel to the axle in their normal position. > >A four link rear suspension, where [two of] the links are [at] angles to provide lateral >location can only work if the links have rubber joints. Also the links have >to locate the axle as well as control the torque. How is this different from the a arm? For high powered cars, >you cannot get sufficient torque control (resistance to wheel hop) and bump >isolation at the same time. This is OK for race cars but makes for a poor >road car. A very good solution is a torque arm for torque, a trailing arm >on each side for bump isolation and bump steer control, and a panhard rod or >watts link for lateral location. Just like a 1976 Vega and used since 1982 >on the Camaro and Firebird. Volvo also had a good solution on the 700 >series sedan. The torque arm was replaced by two rods (half a 4 link >mounted in the middle) which mounted to a subframe. > >Gary Derian > You haven't thought this out. With a four link you can vary the angle of the upper and lower links realitive to each other in side view to vary the location of the instant center. The distance from the instant center to axle is the length of the effective arm the axle is attached to. This arm is infinitely long when the links are parallel. Your trailing arm length is 12"? 18"? If I choose, I can place the instant center in side view on an imaginary line from the contact point of the rear tire to the intersection of the height of the center of gravity and the centerline of the front axle and have 100% anti-squat. I will have more rear wheel traction for leaving at a light or coming out of a turn and this means I can put more power to the road. The only wheel hop problem I have with the four link is brake hop if I make the effective arm length too short chasing too much anti-squat. Come to think of it, you could reverse the angle of the arms, >>attaching at the ends of the axle housing instead of the pumpkin and near >to >>the longitudinal center line at the chassis. Now you have a four link which >>provides lateral control and eliminates the need for a Panhard or Watts. By the way, looked it up, this is called a Satchell Link. According to Herb Adams in Chassis Engineering, the advantages of a Satchell are that it provides considerable anti-squat with roll understeer and a low roll center. Regards, Joe ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:00:51 -0600 Subject: Re: hp loss > >On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 Jason_Leone@xxx.com wrote: > > >A big factor is the rear axle gearset and especially if it is a hypoid > >design and also [I think] how much the actual offset is between the ring > >and pinion centreline; the greater the offset, the longer the pinion tooth > >becomes, thus increasing friction. I notice spiral bevel gearsets coming > >back into production and I believe it is because of the greater drag of > >the hypoid design. > Someone is making a 9" Ford center section that takes 12 bolt GM ( or maybe it was Dana 60 ) R&P gears because they were slightly more efficient. If my memory is correct, it was due to the dimension differences , maybe the pinion was mounted lower............ don't know about these things Tom S ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:07:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Fuel tuning... That's the PW reading from the ALDL stream... I'm going by the O2 voltage readings... I know the Buick GN guys like to shoot for 780-820mV at WOT, but not sure if that applies here or not. At 07:56 PM 3/13/99 -0500, you wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: David A. Cooley >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 7:36 PM >Subject: Fuel tuning... > >How ya get the much Pulse width?. >Ya saying rich due to O2 voltage?. >Or ya do a plug cut?. >Bruce > > >>Hello all, >>It appears my 95 LeSabre is PIG rich at WOT. >>Here's what I see just before the 1-2 shift: >>O2 volts: 927.96mV >>Coolant Temp: 184.10 Deg F >>Engine Speed: 5140 RPM >>LV8: 228 >>Injector PW: 18.37mS >>TPS Voltage: 4.32 V >>Intake Air Temp: 81.50 Deg F >>Ign. Advance: 24.71 Deg. >>MAF: 143.63 grams/sec >> >>No knock detected, 3.8L V6 running 93 octane. >> >>Any suggestions on what to tweak first are welcome! >>Looking for better acceleration/performance. >>Thanks, >>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. >>=========================================================== >> > =========================================================== 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: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:13:55 -0600 Subject: Re: Chassis dynos exposed > > Three years? Clayton has been making water brake chassis dynos for > >well over THIRTY years. I own one. > > Yes, they have. And a chassis dyno with a brake--water or electric--at > least IMHO--is the only kind worth having or running a car on!! Electric > brakes are somewhat more desireable, as they will develop greater braking > torque at lower speeds. We built a chassi dyno for motorcycles at the IofI in 1966 for engineering open house with an 8" roller mounted to a 6-71 gimmy. A PDP-8 counted rpm from the points on the nut that held it together. We created a vacuum by pulling thru a long 3" pipe with a ball valve in the middle. Measure rpm and vacuum, then calc HP.. Just keep closing the valve and watching the 'tube' digital display. You could pull the motor down from high rpm in any increment you wanted, until the motor finally gave up (stalled). 10 Hp from a harley, 20 from a 650 triumph, 15 from a 250 honda, 27 from a hot 305 yamahamahama and 22 from a 110 CC race two stroke twin at 12,750 rpm, Maybe that's why my hearing is bad... Tom S ------------------------------ From: "Ward Spoonemore" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 17:28:08 -0800 Subject: RE: Fuel tuning... Yep, your right, turn down wot fuel until you get to the high 800's Ward - -----Original Message----- From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu [mailto:owner-diy_efi@xxx. Cooley Sent: Saturday, March 13, 1999 4:29 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Fuel tuning... Hello all, It appears my 95 LeSabre is PIG rich at WOT. Here's what I see just before the 1-2 shift: O2 volts: 927.96mV Coolant Temp: 184.10 Deg F Engine Speed: 5140 RPM LV8: 228 Injector PW: 18.37mS TPS Voltage: 4.32 V Intake Air Temp: 81.50 Deg F Ign. Advance: 24.71 Deg. MAF: 143.63 grams/sec No knock detected, 3.8L V6 running 93 octane. Any suggestions on what to tweak first are welcome! Looking for better acceleration/performance. Thanks, 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: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:42:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Fuel tuning... - -----Original Message----- From: David A. Cooley To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 8:13 PM Subject: Re: Fuel tuning... 60 sec divided by 5,000 gives 12 something. wonder if we need to divide by2. If going by O2 for mixture please don't. The a lot of acrhive stuff about how poor of job it does. Do a couple plug cuts and get back to me .... If ya got the need to tinker (assuming ya got a G-Tech, or something to accurately measure improvements) the try taking a couple % off the high gm/sec area. If ya get any knock retard back up Bruce >That's the PW reading from the ALDL stream... >I'm going by the O2 voltage readings... I know the Buick GN guys like to >shoot for 780-820mV at WOT, but not sure if that applies here or not. > > > >At 07:56 PM 3/13/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David A. Cooley >>To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >>Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 7:36 PM >>Subject: Fuel tuning... >> >>How ya get the much Pulse width?. >>Ya saying rich due to O2 voltage?. >>Or ya do a plug cut?. >>Bruce >> >> >>>Hello all, >>>It appears my 95 LeSabre is PIG rich at WOT. >>>Here's what I see just before the 1-2 shift: >>>O2 volts: 927.96mV >>>Coolant Temp: 184.10 Deg F >>>Engine Speed: 5140 RPM >>>LV8: 228 >>>Injector PW: 18.37mS >>>TPS Voltage: 4.32 V >>>Intake Air Temp: 81.50 Deg F >>>Ign. Advance: 24.71 Deg. >>>MAF: 143.63 grams/sec >>> >>>No knock detected, 3.8L V6 running 93 octane. >>> >>>Any suggestions on what to tweak first are welcome! >>>Looking for better acceleration/performance. >>>Thanks, >>>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. >>>=========================================================== >>> >> > >=========================================================== > 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: James Weiler Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 17:42:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: exhaust system idea gang, I occured to me yesterday to ask a basic question about exhaust systems. Since it's an advantage to have staged throttle bodies (like in 4 barrel carbs) why not do the same for an exhaust? I imagine such a system could have a HUGE pipe between the header and the muffler and then two pipes exiting the muffler and going out the back. However one would have a butterfly valve in it and at low RPMs and low engine load it would be closed. However at high RPM and/or high load it would open. This second tube could even bypass the muffler to reduce back presure. OK, what am I missing here? Are the gains too small to be worth it? This system could be quiet most of the time and a screamer when you want/need it to be. cheers, james ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:46:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Chassis dynos exposed Jason wrote: > > Daniel wrote: > > < they're > bad, but don't knock down the other dynos. They're very useful tuning > tools, at least for me and some other fellow racers.>> > > I'm not marketing anything. Did I mention I was a Mustang Dyno sales rep > or something? I don't think so. I use an old water-brake Clayton load > type dyno, FYI. I'm not knocking down other dynos, in terms of name > brands. I simply offered some general information about chassis > dnynamometer types, and a little insight for the avergage enthusiast to > gain some knowledge from. I'd bet 75% of this list has never even seen a > chassis dyno in person, let alone tune a car on one. I'd even go so far > to say that the same percentage of list members did not know the types > of chassis dynos or how they actually work. My post was an informational > soap box post, you know...archive type info. I was hoping to clarify > that there is a distinction when somebody uses the general term "chassis > dyno". Now, some of the list members that learned a little from my post > can ask some fundamental questions when confronted with tuner claims of > "Bolt-on 100hp...dyno proven!". Hope this clears up any misconceptions > about my posting intentions. Hey, it worked for me. And in exactly the way you intended. Thanks to your post, I've burned about 4 hours today looking at dyno info and claims. BTW, I find the dynojet pages the LEAST technical of the ones I've visited. Shannen ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #166 ***************************** 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".