Roman

Definitely dont change the air intake, trust me.

A motor of that size in a car that heavy, just not much you can do in the way of low end power.

Clean the airflow meter (carefully) and change the filters, maybe spark plugs.

Wouldnt do much more than that.

I found my beams motor to be quite torquey all things considered, but that was in a much lighter car I guess.

Toughest corner on Taupo is the first corner as its a double apex corner.

You reckon?

I think the most technical is the old style corner off the end of the straight, where you're veering in to the left under braking.

Either that, or the off camber corner at the end of the esses, turn.... 4?

Sweeper at the far end still has me scratching my head more than anything, about how to take it properly.

P.S. You may know me otherwise as the drunken 'cant take him anywhere' guy.

Mint car!

Everything looks so new and shiny.

Sucks scratching paint putting things back together though

So I've just about finished the exhaust, but I've run out of bends,

Just wondering though, do most people here go over, or under the diff? I'm thinking with the larger diameter pipe there might not be enough clearance from the top of the diff to the exhaust pipe, and the chassis.

I'm going 'over' but will see how it goes, I guess I can just hack it off at that point and reroute it underneath if it sucks that way.

wiki sez

Sealed first-price auction, also known as a first-price sealed-bid auction (FPSB). In this type of auction all bidders simultaneously submit sealed bids so that no bidder knows the bid of any other participant. The highest bidder pays the price they submitted.[4][16] This type of auction is distinct from the English auction, in that bidders can only submit one bid each. Furthermore, as bidders cannot see the bids of other participants they cannot adjust their own bids accordingly.[16] Sealed first-price auctions are commonly used in tendering, particularly for government contracts and auctions for mining leases.[16]

I'd take the cam cover off, and see if there's been oil splashing around up there.

I mean it could be that it *says* it's got no oil pressure, when it's been building pressure fine.

If not, next thing I'd check would be that the oil pickup is not blocked or sitting on the bottom of the oilpan or something, can happen if you get a dent in your pan. Or given that it looks like you've got a custom sump, yeah check the clearances to the oil pickup to bottom of the pan, if the pan bent a little when you sat it down, or something like that...

Just read your thread, +1, Stick with it!

Seems so close, and will be a worthy car when done, you will not regret finishing it!

Car looks awesome.

Regarding green stickers etc for running stretched tires....

Even if technically it's a legal modification to have tires under the guards and no mention of wheels sticking out, it's illegal to run a tire width on a rim width that it's not intended for.

So its not possible to legally have your wheels sticking out further than the tread anyway, hence why the rules regarding this only mention the tires and not the wheels.

I'm not criticising or anything, just FYI, that's technically the law regarding the situation.

With a lot of trial and error, I made it hahaha.

It's an aluminium plate that bolts onto the throttles before the trumpets, then the box over the top is made from fibreglass.

I made that by making the shape out of expanding spray foam stuff, fibreglassing over the top and then pulling the foam out afterwards.

Aaaaaand it goes!

Really need to make an exhaust for it though, sounds alright in the vid but like a bag of crap IRL!

No update in over a year, and still not going yet.

Well I finished stripping the shell, got it all primered and yada yada. LSD fitted, big brakes fitted, hand brake cables sorted, wiring done, new coolant lines, new rear water outlet, new gearbox crossmember, lots of fiddly bits like that.

General laziness has also been a contributing factor for why it's taken so long.

Aaahh well pending some replacement coilpacks turning up tomorrow for my 3 dud ones, And me not having forgotten to tighten up something important, this sucker should fire up before the weekend!

The devil has been in the detail, sorting out all of the fiddly bits like new brake lines, wiring, coolant lines, blah blah.

Assuming the motor runs well and doesnt blow up, I've just gotta assemble the car all back together, make sure there's no more holes to drill anywhere or whatever, make sure wheels fit nicely under gaurds, make sure everyhing is sweet...

Then pull it all apart again and paint it properly, then put it all together again, then go for wof/reg/cert.

So ETA for completion, TBA

Twas an S/C14. With the A15 and a big cam the boost wasn't too out of hand. With the smaller engine and dismal stock lift it soared.

Haha well think of it this way...

Boost is a measure of the difference between how much air the supercharger can blow in, and how much air the engine can consume.

Say you engine consumes X amount of air, and the supercharger is blowing Y amount of air, and you have 15psi measured at the manifold.

Now lets say you change the cams so that the engine now consumes X+5 amount of air, but the supercharger is still blowing the same 'Y' amount of air, it will show that less boost is being made...

Less restriction = less 'boost' but more actual air into the motor.

So you were probably less likely to blow it up with 15psi and small cams, than you were with lower boost levels with a more efficient engine.

It's the overall mass of air in the engine that matters, or in this case is helping blow up the motor.

Which I must say was well done in this case, awesome pics!

No road going car (well, non below $200,000 or so) has any real ground effect,

and lowering your car does not change this, lowering is simply visual rice

and can in no way make your supra handle better. The stock suspension can

more than handle it's stock height. I'm not saying lowering doesn't look good

if done right, just that is is BAD for handling.

I'm failing to see what's wrong here.

Seemingly relevant quote...

make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong -- look what they can do to a Weber carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver. -- Colin Chapman ...

Put bigger ones on the right hand side, and tell people it's a nascar.

Got a few lols from having an MR2 a while back.

"Hey, so these are front wheel drive eh?"

"No."

"But isnt the motor in the back?!"

How does that even make sense?!?!

another good one was (something along the lines of:)

"Motors in the back of those eh?"

"yep"

"And they're rear wheel drive, eh?"

"yep"

"Yeah. nah. Cant go sideways in them" (with a matter-of-fact'ly sort of nod)

"Well actually, I've had it sideways at 120+kph at taupo track, no problems"

"Nah, it's impossible, cant do it"

"Uuuuhhh... yes, you can."

"Nah, you cant do it, too much weight in the back. they just spin out."

I must have remembered wrong or divided by zero or something, because clearly it must be impossible to go sideways in an MR2 if some 17 year old performance car reading dipshit working in a gas station, tells me it cant be done.

Also, a mate was looking for a car many years ago. One guy selling a 20V FXGT, and insisting that it had a 2 litre engine swapped in.

Go to see it, see the badge down the side "twin cam 20" and we both sorta facepalmed, already knew why this idiot thought it was 2 litre.

But to give him the benefit of doubt, we check under the bonnet to see a stock as a rock silvertop, politely explain to him why he's an idiot who's wasted our time, then go back home.

I've overheard a few times, some 15 y/o kids talking to each other like they know how to talk 'cars' where they're both sort of trying to bluff the other one with bullshit, because neither wants to admit that they dont know what they're talking about, at all. "Yeah, was an evo 5.5 with a 6.5 tommy mcracken body kit, forged pistons from an RB26, blah blah..."

But point being that anything from early 90s onwards 3S's use the same flywheel pattern, as all the cranks are the same.

Gen 3 starts at 1994, so not all 90's ones have 8 bolt fly's. However he's using a beams so just get an aftermarket one, as you said.

It's only the gen 1 motor that has the 6 bolt fly, (which they stopped in 1988-1989?) all 90s 3SG(T)Es have the 8 bolt, first SW20s and ST185s came out in 1989 with the gen 2 motors.

Late 80s gen 1 3S's had the 6 bolt flywheel, (or was it 8 bolt but smaller PCD? Cant remember)

But point being that anything from early 90s onwards 3S's use the same flywheel pattern, as all the cranks are the same.

Altezza flywheels are different to the FWD 3S ones, the face of the flywheel is further away from the end of the crank.

Altezza flywheels also have the spigot bearing in the middle, where as FWD ones dont.

My reccomendation is definitely aftermarket light flywheel specifically made for altezza.

Standard altezza ones are something stupid like 18kg, 'light' ones are in the 6kg region.

For the clutch, I think the input shaft of the gearbox is different between FWD boxes and the 6 speed, so again, get one specifically for an altezza.

Personally I think it's a good idea to keep the clutch as the weakest link, have a bit of slip in there rather than breaking gearboxes or diffs. So just standard one for me, last clutch blew up on account of being too grippy, in a situation where a 'normal' clutch would have slipped, and survived.

But if you're building a car for drifting or burnouts, I guess you'd want something a little more hardy.

Yeah I saw some pretty sweet cars down there over new years...

One of the few mint cars that I see around west akl on a regular basis, is an old fella driving around in a bronze coloured 240Z, it's freaken sweet.

There's also an old lady in a MINT AE86 that always has her dog sitting in the front seat... haha!

Where do you think could be called the 'capital' of OSness in New Zealand?

I live in West Auckland, and to be honest I dont really see much in the way of older cars around anymore.

Every time I've rocked down to hamilton, I've seen a massive stash of sweet cars.

Have heard that some areas of the south island has always had the mega sweet stash of oldschool cars still around, yay or nay?

When my brother was parting out and selling his valiant, every single thing he sold went down to the south island somewhere.

Yep, that's correct.

The problem being that in this instance, given that (torque = force x distance) the torque figure is the force applied to the rollers, and the 'distance' is the radius of the rollers... which is unknown to us.

So no other changes to the car, if you changed to larger or smaller diameter rollers, the indicated torque figures would change. Dividing the shown figure by the final drive ratio, or by engine rpms, or what ever else doesnt mean anything at all, because wheel rpm, engine rpm, driveshaft rpm, is all irrelevant.

You could be running on the rollers, and be given a chart to show your torque output, anything that can apply a force to the rollers at given rollers rpm can be given a horsepower graph.

But the thing is, even if you knew the diameter/rpm/etc of the rollers (which could be worked out, by applying the HP formula in reverse) would it really tell you anything useful?

Apart from measuring on an engine dyno, I cant think of a useful way to find some torque figures that are comparable to other graphs/cars/etc. But even then... it's not how much power at the engine that you've got that pushes you along, it's what you can actually put to the ground.

There's not much point in bragging about having 400hp 'at the fly' if only 150hp makes it to the rollers, because you've got a gearbox full of sand or something.

Actually in my opinion it's only the torque curve that matters. If it's got no balls down low, you've already been overtaken by the V8 which does have low down torque. Whatever it makes up top is irrelevent because you've already lost.

My last car was a 2 litre NA that was good for 1.9 second 60 foots on street tires...

A lack of bottom end power is nothing that a 6500rpm clutch dump off the line cant fix.

I've seen plenty of examples of cars with no top end getting smoked when they run out of puff... and also vice versa!

I guess in a perfect world we'd have an engine that weighs 5kgs, has a million units of torque from 5rpm right to its 65,000rpm redline, but usually there's a trade off one way or another, and plenty of different combinations seem to work well.

To get the most out of a peaky torque curve you need close gears and plenty of them, to keep the revs up high.

Agreed, and for me personally, that's what I love.

However, end of the day there are all sorts of cars that are fast, and all sorts of cars that are slow, in every discipline.

Adam @ torque performance used to have a twin supercharged capri that had 150hp at the wheels, but ran 12s...

And you can have 9500rpm hondas with zero power below 7500rpm that run the same times.

Any type of powerband can be fast, if it's got the right gearing/final drive/etc.

But there's no doubting that stack of bottom end torque, like what RT has here, is going to make his car a hell of a lot of fun.

yeah it's a hub dyno Roman on both of them.. but yeah I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with my crap explanation of torque graphs or just adding further insight lol

Hmmm not sure any more either, I've got a piss poor short term memory

*A car will accelerate hardest at its torque peak in any given gear, and will not accelerate as hard below that peak, or above it. 300 foot pounds of torque will accelerate you just as hard at 2000 rpm as it would if you were making that torque at 4000 rpm in the same gear.

The point of peak engine horsepower is where the most amount of torque is available to be applied to the wheels. (ignoring affect of wheel diameter for this example)

For example lets say you had 400 ft lbs of torque at the engine at 3000rpm, in a 1:1 gear with a 4:1 final drive ratio, and were doing 100kph. this means 400 x 1 x / 4 = 100 ft lbs of torque at the wheels.

Now lets say that you had 400 ft lbs of torque at the engine at 6000rpm instead, with the final drive ratio adjusted (2:1) so that you'd still be doing 100kph when applying this 400 ft lbs in that gear. 400 x 1 / 2 = 200 ft lbs of torque at the wheels. Same engine torque at twice the rpm = twice the torque at the wheels at the same speed, if your final drive ratio etc are adjusted to suit.

Horsepower figures for each instance are:

400ft lbs x 3000rpm / 5252 = 228hp

400ft lbs x 6000rpm / 5252 = 456hp... exactly twice as much horsepower.

This is the point of a horsepower curve, as torque isnt relevant without rpms in the equation, and more power in total can still be available after the peak torque has dropped off, because the increased rpms make up for it.

When you apply this to the gear ratios, you can sometimes find that it's worth holding in a particular gear even past peak horsepower, because you're still making more torque at the wheels by doing so than if you dropped into the next gear and apply more torque at the lower rpm.

^ it was 2L T not a 2.8T.. and I'm pretty sure it was in 3rd or 4th

and yeah it's wheel torque on the graph but you can work backwards with the gearing to work it out to be 250nm.

The scale/units for the torque figures given on roller dynos are completely useless, only the horsepower graph is relevant.

why?

Because to work out how much horsepower the car is making, the machine measures the torque applied to the rollers, and the rpm of the rollers, and applies the horsepower formula to it (based on known constants, such as circumference/diameter of the rollers, drag losses through turning the rollers at a given rpm etc etc).

The larger the diameter of the rollers that you're sitting on, the more torque you're going to have shown, but at a lower rpm, so the horsepower figure stays the same.

power 'at the wheels' is kind of misleading because it's actually power 'at the rollers'.

From the horsepower figure and torque figure shown, you could work it backwards to find out the diameter/rpm of the rollers, but this isnt particularly useful for anything I dont think.

You can work the torque backwards by taking the horsepower figure at a given RPM, and then do the horsepower formula backwards to determine the 'at the wheels' torque, but this probably isnt overly useful either, since it's not really relevant to the wheel speed at all.

Regardless of all of this, the shape of the torque curve never really changes depending on what gear etc, although you could change the scale on the graph to make it as peaky looking or as flat as you want, so even this cant really be compared particularly well between different dyno sheets done on different dynos.

I've seen some people compare two different torque curves which had different scales applied to them, and saying "Why is this torque curve so flat, and this one up and down all over the place?" When they were near identical when you look at the scale of the units of measurement.

Body coloured rims look shit house IMO

And the pale coloured steelies on the rat rod type cars. ugh.

Pretty sure rat rods are/were about doing things on a budget, not intentionally trying to make it look like a pile of shit.