Roman

Townace hubs!

Yep, I'm running corona struts in my carina.

I need some of the 4 pots to test fit, but reckon I'll have sussed a way that means no disc over front of the hub, no spacer for caliper.

Get an F series diff from any RA40 or similar or RA60 or similar celica or carina... Bolts straight in, and big enough to take some abuse!

Forget that soarer junk! Will give you positive camber in a corona. Factory vented struts from an AA63 carina/celica, or AT141 corona are the go. Doesnt screw with your geomometry at all, and plenty good enough for most cases. Been in a race car still running up these, hauls up mean at pukekohe with good pads and fluid. Have also sussed out a big brake upgrade that doesnt increase front track at all, that fits carina/corona/celica/soarer/etc.

Haha, so was Glenn who told you to do it.

You break an axle? IRS conversion? mean!

Yeah I put an Altezza cusco 2 way in my F series live axle, fit up sweet! No modding required. And yeah, TRD G series LSD that Tama Autos was selling was fucking mega, worth every cent for who ever bought it IMO. That'd support some biiiiiig power going through it.

Nah, I dont think that's the point... Point is that if there's a big amount of adjustment, he could use the struts for having the car slammed with short stroke shocks and hard springs, or if he decides to rally it or something, haha, he could use the same struts with longer stroke shocks, way softer springs, and still have a sweet amount of adjustment either. I cant see the downside to having too much thread on there, apart from a marginal amount of extra weight. Better than not enough!

Oh right, I get what you're saying. Weird, as I would have thought the mechanical thermostat would have made it heat up just as fast either way.

Why arent you running a thermostat? Your heater would instantly work a million times better if you did, and the engine temperature would be more stable. P.S. Corona coupes are awesome

KPR for president!

As in, they kill the whole family of 1G engines? In other news, Truenotch, your sig looks freaken awesome.

Hydrogen turns you into a Nazi?!!?!

As far as I am aware, it's not a WOF requirement to have the battery vented, or cert... Only for hardout motorsport regulations. The gas coming from the battery is just hydrogen anyway, isnt it?

Yeah, if I ever have a go at making an exhaust manifold I'll likely mostly try to copy the TODA design/lengths/diameters/etc I could get a close enough idea by scale measuring in autocad, from known measurements on the pic (hole to hole on the flange) to find out if that's OD or ID, and get ballpark figure for primary and secondary lengths but CBF right now haha. Either way, it's interesting that it retains what looks to be about the equivilent overal length compared to standard, but much longer primaries and much shorter secondaries...

I know where that's from, I'd read that 'modifying the 3S' guide with a grain of salt tbh.

I cant find the page where it mentions it now, but the TODA racing website somewhere mentions that although a 4-1 setup gives marginally more top end, with a good 4-2-1 they were losing say... 1% top end but gaining crap loads of mid range and low end power. They show pipe diameters etc for Altezza 3S extractors here: http://www.toda-racing.co.jp/en/product ... i/3sg.html Presumably inside diameter for piping.

Problem with adjustable height springs like that is that the shocks still determine the ride height. Wind the springs down, and they're not captive. Wind them up too much, run heaps of preload and have a car that handles like a bag of crap. Ideally the adjustable section would raise or lower the shock and spring together. Which is not to say adjustable spring perch is pointless, What I am trying to say is that make sure that you are double, triple sure that if you cut down the top of your strut that its going to be at the right height! As the length of shock that sticks out is more or less what determines how it's going to sit on the road, assuming you dont want a car that handles like crap or is illegal.

It's a moot point, given that S2k extractors never fit, and run down the right hand side of the car so more of a PITA to remake around steering column etc. Beams motor runs down other side, so easier to make a manifold if you're gonna. But better chances of fitting up sweet in the first place. Powerfc! Plug and play, comes with a good basemap, VVTI fully mapped, ready to suit factory sensors, all setup. A few tweaks on the dyno at best and you'd be good to go. I bought one for $650 back in the day, but sold it on to fund a trackday. I think they're about $1200 brand new. Or for the single VVTI motors, redtop etc, the powerfc from the 1ZZFE is nearly plug and play, just need 1ZZFE coilpacks, splice oxy sensor wires or something, upload 3S basemap onto it with FC datalogit. Also a moot point, as it's equally if not more expensive for S2k quad throttles, and the factory manifolds flow well in either instance. Yes, but the point is that even if it costs almost the same, you're still only $1200 or so down the tubes when/if you blow up a motor. Rather than $8k down the hole. Also, you can get the car up and running with standard power and add bits over time, rather than all eggs in one basket and needing $10k up front for motor and gearbox. In saying this I've seen a few F20C into AE86 build ups on various forums and some youtube videos, and they sound and look freaken sweet, go really well. Definitely a cool combo! F20C into FWD would be interesting, wonder if it's been done before.

There's no doubt in my mind that the S2K motor/box is the best NA 2 litre package you can get for a RWD car. But it's what 240hp for $8-9k? for an S2k setup? Or 210hp for $2-3k or so with an altezza package. I'm not suggesting it because I've got one, but the altezza setup is definitely the most cost effective $/hp for a reliable 2 litre NA setup that you can wail on all day long. I would take an F20C over my beams motor any day of the week.... But they're too expensive! And far less common, so a lot harder to replace if need be. Using standard Altezza block, spending some $$$ on things like nice extractors, ECU and throttles perhaps, and you might be 20hp down on F20C but only spent half as much. And when/if your motor blows up, just go buy another standard block for cheap, put your fancy bits on it, and be up and running again. Rather than completely up the shit, having to replace an expensive (although admittedly superior) motor, or having a fully built motor that you've spent $$$$ on blow up, which leaves you back at square one.

Oh yeah, another thing. It's interesting about port sizes. With the 4AGE motors, started out with big ports, got smaller and made more power as they went on. With the 3SGE motors, the NA one that makes the most power has the biggest ports. I talked to Lynn Rogers about it ages ago, he reckons the Altezza M/T ports are too big. The single VVTI motors or the auto altezza motors are the pick of the bunch for port size, but I think they have smaller buckets or something which is less useful for big cams. Or something like that. Here's a pic of one of the ports from mine, had some port work done that was particularly well done according to Lynn.(Came like that from Japan) Not that you can tell anything from a face on picture, but may be useful for comparison or something. Size of port at the face is approx 49across x 40mm high

Alright well I've been doing a bit of thinking about air intakes into motors. (rant in progress... contains thoughts from 2am, may not be fully coherent) First of all, starting at the start. What is their function? The function of an intake runner is to accellerate non moving air at the far end, to the highest speed just before getting to the head. (which is not to say that a higher speed is necessarily better... just that there's not much point in slowing it down, speeding it up again, along the length if you can help it) Lets say that the ideal speed for air entering the head, to give the largest mass of air into the engine was was 300kph. And at the far end, the air speed is zero. Fluids are lazy, and dont like moving if they dont have to. A linear rate of accelleration is the best way to move a fluid from one speed to another. In this instance, from 0kph to 300kph. To do this with a tube, you need to have a proportionally smaller cross sectional area as it goes, to increase the velocity. So lets say, that at the head, the cross sectional area where we want 300kph is 50mm square. Lets also say that we've got 300mm long intake runners, with which we've got to accellerate air from 0kph to 300kph. This means that for every mm of pipe, the air has to accellerate by 1kph. So 0mm from the head, airspeed 300mm, cross sectional area 50mm squared. 10mm from the head, airspeed 290kph, cross sectional area is ((300/290)*100)*50 = rounded to 52 square mm. Continuing this on at 10mm intervals for the length of 300mm tube, courtesy of excel doing the maths for me, and you end up with numbers like this: Now, if we divide these numbers by pi, and then divide them by 2, we can know what the radius at each point is. Getting excel to do the maths again, gives us these numbers: If we know the radius at points from the head in 10mm intervals, we can draw a sketch to proper scale of what the 'ideal' intake would look like, assuming linear increase in velocity is ideal. How close this would match a 'real' intake would show whether or not this idea is barking up the wrong tree... Which with a few minutes in autocad, gives this: Then a spline line thrown over the points: Then mirrored, to show what the intake runner cross section would look like, for one dimensional flow: An obvious problem here, is that in an automotive application there's no possible way you could have a trumpet end that big in an engine bay. (or 4 or more!) But the point is, bearing this in mind, assuming its correct, makes a few other things make sense. 1. Why having a taper makes sense over 'straight' intake runners... Flowing air at constant speed at one part of an intake runner is inefficient, as more 'work' has to be done accellerating the air from a slower speed over a shorter distance (?) Also shows that a 'straight' taper, although better than constant cross section, is still not 10/10ths 'ideal'. (Even if in realistic terms, it is 98% as good) 2. That the most logical way to port a head and design an intake runner is to start at the valves, find cross sectional area at a relevant point. Apply the maths formula to figure out what the cross sectional area should be at mm intervals from this point outwards, based on what you want your total intake length to be. Fill in or expand ports/intake runner cross sectional area to suit this. Rather than just random grinding here and there to make it 'look' like it flows well. 3. That porting a head means nothing if it doesnt have the intake match it, they're parts of one functioning entity, different parts of the line on the diagram. cut a line vertically through any part of that picture above, one side is the shape of the port and other side is shape of the intake. It doesnt matter where the port stops and intake runner starts, the whole thing needs to follow that shape overall to work well. (theoretically?) 4. Decreasing the diameter of the ports at a particular point can be logical if it makes the air accellerate in a more linear fashion, even if this initially seems counter intuitive to making more air flow into the motor 5. Also explains why so much of the flow losses occur (in the previously posted diagram) around the valve seat sort of area, this is where the cross sectional area expands a hell of a lot. Imagine it being a big bump outwards in shape on the narrow end of the picture above. 6. Not entirely relevant, but something that sort of 'clicked' while I was thinking about this. Why does water swirl, or tornado make that shape? Water or air wants to accellerate at a linear rate. To do this when going down a sink hole, it takes the most direct route it can which allows a linear rate of accelleration. So the route which isnt necessarily the shortest A to B can be the most efficient getting the air or water to move there. In this instance, a swirl pattern is best. If you had a sink hole with the 'ideal' cross sectional area, then the swirl would not occur perhaps? Disclaimer: I have no idea if the above is true or not, just some thoughts on the matter. possibly wildly wrong in some/all instances, will perhaps start some meaningful discussion however. Even if it's correcting me where I'm wrong. Keen to know!

Just get some replacement ones. You'll likely find that tops from a few other types of cars fit, I put cressida ones in my soarer when one of them broke.