IR89 - back in action.

ImpulseRocket89 · Post by **ImpulseRocket89** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:56 pm

Not very far, just from Omaha to Bellevue, which is essentially considered a part of the greater metro area still. 25 miles for the car and about 15 for me.

Post by **Piazza_man** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:36 pm

So the car is going elsewhere?

ImpulseRocket89 · Post by **ImpulseRocket89** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:35 pm

No, the car is already located elsewhere. It is now going to be with me at the new place and in an actual garage where I can do the work I need to do to it.

Post by **Piazza_man** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:43 pm

Right. Gotcha.

ImpulseRocket89 · Post by **ImpulseRocket89** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:49 am

A slightly different side of the project. I have a desire to keep cruise control, but the stock cruise solenoid is huge and located in a bad place for chasing power goals with bigger turbochargers. I believe I have found a solution.

To start, the stock cruise control gets a signal from a speed sensor in the factory cluster. I messaged Jerry Lemond about the speed signal source, and he as actually able to tell me about the signal. The stock speedo cable is designed to turn 1000 RPM at 60 mph. The speed sensor is designed to send 4 pulses per cable revolution.

If my math is correct, then that gives it a Pulse Per Mile signal of 4000. The signal itself is a sine-wave (Jerry does not believe it is a hall signal) which means that there is at least one, possibly two aftermarket cruise control solutions that would work.

I am considering this unit from Rostra, and I have heard good things about it. It is a vacuum-less system and uses a very powerful solenoid to do all of the work, and the functions are all programmable. The basic kit sells for around $160-170, and you would wire it into the factory switches for the cruise functions.
http://www.rostra.com/universal-afterma ... rostra.php

There is also this unit from Dakota Digital, which looks to be similar, but I am unsure if it is capable of Sine Wave signals. If so that would give two good options.
http://www.dakotadigital.com/index.cfm/ ... /prd48.htm

My idea is to wire it into the stock switches, and replace the factory cruise computer with the Rostra gear, and then locate the new solenoid on the same Left Side fender as my factory unit, but moved for clearance. Then hook up the cable to the pedal just like the factory solenoid, through the firewall. It would be nice to hide it more, but I am not that picky. There are a lot of good mounting locations under the hood that I can utilize now that the TCU and factory Cruise solenoid are no longer in place.

Post by **Piazza_man** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:54 pm

Good idea. Hopefully the conversion will be as easy as you've described it. I know I'll be watching with interest.

Post by **Piazza_man** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:45 pm

ImpulseRocket89 wrote:Not annoying me at all. It's a 75mm TB for a 94-98 Mustang GT. I could have also gotten the 70, but for airflow needs at higher boost the 75 works better. Considering I am going with a 3" (76.2mm) charge pipe from the intercooler it just kinda works well that way.

I am wondering how my throttle response will be, but I don't imagine it will be too bad. The plenum volume will really determine that paired with the size of the TB too. If I remember right the stock single blade TB on the factory plenum I have now is about 60mm (not sure on that, but its close).

I found some throttle body flow numbers
60mm 580-600cfm
65mm 625-650cfm
70mm 675-700cfm
75mm 750-775cfm
90mm 1100cfm

These stats are out of the official mustang 5.0 technical reference and performance handbook.

Whilst doing this research I also learnt that for every 1hp the engine needs 1.5cfm. If my maths is correct then your 75mm throttle body can only muster up to about 515hp. If the 700hp is what you're after then the 90mm should be the pick. From what I've picked up from other forum sources a larger TB is not an issue for high output turbo engines in terms of throttle response.

ImpulseRocket89 · Post by **ImpulseRocket89** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:33 am

Are those flow numbers for vacuum conditions on an NA motor, static conditions, or calculated for a forced induction application? Makes a big difference.

A 75mm TB under high velocity conditions of forced induction will flow over 1000+cfm. Most of the 700+ HP evos and sti's out there are only running 70mm tb's, for an example.

Take one of our heads for example. Let us say an average 4ze1 head, ported, flows 200cfm at .500 lift at 28 inches of vacuum. Take that head and throw it on an engine and run it NA, lets say you manage to sqeeze 200hp out of it. Now, without changing anything on said engine, you put a turbocharger on it with 10psi of positive manifold pressure, it makes 400hp.

Also, from my own personal experience, TB size does have an effect on throttle response off-boost. If you are chasing huge power, then by all means go with an enormous TB, because that is where it will shine. There is such a thing as too big though, even on a turbo car. The larger the blade, the less open control there is on a given engine (whole other subject entirely). In short, a huge TB with a HUGE turbo can be tricky to drive accurately because the power becomes more difficult to regulate. That makes it a pain in the ass around corners, for example.

IZU069 · Post by **IZU069** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:46 am

ImpulseRocket89 wrote:I have a desire to keep cruise control...

Regarding the speed sensors...

Our 4ZC1-t Aussie Piazzas have a reed switch mounted on the top of the speedo. Or I think so - maybe I am confusing with other Isuzus I have seen (Rodeo etc).
If so, it's a square-wave output, though it may have typical "switch bounce" noise.

But a Hall-effect device could be substituted. Depending on the Hall device, it may be digital (pulsed) or analog output. VIZ - the HKZ101 type modules as often used for ignition systems are a pulsed output (GND else floating), but "raw" Hall sensors have an analog output. (The HKZ101 has internal squaring circuitry.)

Some (old) vehicles have a generator type output where its voltage is proportional to speed. Our old 1965 Toyota Crown had that for its overdrive gear sensing. But I doubt such systems would be common today or since the 1970s.

A while ago someone posted a Piazza sensor which was electronic. It replaced the standard speedo cable at the gearbox. That will almost certainly be a pulsed output. (Nissan do similar - same gearbox fitting as Isuzus - and from memory that uses a 10-pole disc magnet, hence 20 pulses per rotation (or was it 10?).)
[FYI - It was proposed that the end-cap could be pried off the Piazza unit and maybe expose a cable take-off. I rushed out to check mine. Alas no such unit - just the normal 90° gearing and cable. I then remembered the reed-switch setup.]

But outputs can be manipulated easily, f.ex:
Sinewaves can be converted to squarewave. A reluctor ignition's ignitor should be able to do that - ie, one ground pulse of maybe 5-9mSec duration per sine cycle (each time the input has a negative-going zero crossing; else +ve going ).
Pulses can easily be divided by whole numbers (eg, using a CD4017 as a "divide by n" counter).
Pulses can be doubled by detecting both edges.

Other output manipulations get trickier, but the above seem to handle most situations.
Pulse multiplication is the trickiest though in theory that's easy using a PLL (phase-locked loop). (But I found the "theory" of what values etc to use for PLL chips too complex for wideband applications like speedos etc!)
However, with cheap programmable chips, pulse multiplication should be relatively straightforward. EG - I have a few PICAXE 08M2's that should suit the task. Mind you, I have yet to mount and program them and I've bee meaning to for years... My current priority is an engine fan control that uses the vehicle's standard gauge sensor (Bellett, Wasp etc), then a soft-start circuit for my Wasp's electric windows, then a distributorless ignition with advance curves (which could be used to modify existing dizzy ignition curves), then running/clearance light & DRL combined with L&R flashers etc, and then ... a Chinese take-away menu orderer, ...and then...

Sorry, I'm back. Phew!

I should have summarised up top:
A sinewave input for a squarewave cruise control should not be an issue - it should be easy to convert. (A spare Piazza reluctor dizzy ignitor should do it, but not those from optical dizzies as used for I-TECs, nor Hall-effect dizzies.)

Oh yeah - another PIC 08M2 project - a cruise control. (Actually the continued use of vacuum cruise controls surprised me, however I learned years ago just how good & accurate pneumatic controllers were; they were a complete replica and analogy of electronic controls but more suited to many industrial applications.)

Apols for the ramble - especially since it involved yet more of my decade-old unrealised round-tuit projects.

ImpulseRocket89 · Post by **ImpulseRocket89** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:57 am

Thanks for the extra info. I am positive I can make the Rostra unit work as it is very adaptable and programmable. I guess if all else fails, if it doesn't work, i can look at alternatives like the ones you listed.

ImpulseRocket89 · Post by **ImpulseRocket89** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:09 am

Eyecon, this actually allows me to touch on another point to coincide with the TB size vs. airflow as well. This has to do with air speed velocity vs. volume and airflow. I don't know if you have ever read the book "Maximum Boost" by Corky bell, but there is some good information and math in that book that deals directly with this issue. One of those areas is charge pipe sizes vs. airflow.

Since somebody else actually did the work for me on this, I will just reference their numbers. From this forum: http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=1202591

Admittedly, with an intercooler this does change velocity and flow figures due to changes in density and the alterations in velocity, but it gives a good idea.

3.0" piping
7.065 sq in = 3.5325 x 2
300 cfm = 69 mph = 0.09 mach
400 cfm = 92 mph = 0.12 mach
500 cfm = 115 mph = 0.15 mach
600 cfm = 138 mph = 0.18 mach
700 cfm = 162 mph = 0.21 mach
800 cfm = 185 mph = 0.24 mach
900 cfm = 208 mph = 0.27 mach
1000 cfm = 231 mph = 0.30 mach
1100 cfm = 254 cfm = 0.33 mach
1200 cfm = 277 mph = 0.36 mach
1300 cfm max= 301 mph = 0.39 mach

Post by **Piazza_man** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:58 am

ImpulseRocket89 wrote:Are those flow numbers for vacuum conditions on an NA motor, static conditions, or calculated for a forced induction application? Makes a big difference.

A 75mm TB under high velocity conditions of forced induction will flow over 1000+cfm. Most of the 700+ HP evos and sti's out there are only running 70mm tb's, for an example.

Take one of our heads for example. Let us say an average 4ze1 head, ported, flows 200cfm at .500 lift at 28 inches of vacuum. Take that head and throw it on an engine and run it NA, lets say you manage to sqeeze 200hp out of it. Now, without changing anything on said engine, you put a turbocharger on it with 10psi of positive manifold pressure, it makes 400hp.

Also, from my own personal experience, TB size does have an effect on throttle response off-boost. If you are chasing huge power, then by all means go with an enormous TB, because that is where it will shine. There is such a thing as too big though, even on a turbo car. The larger the blade, the less open control there is on a given engine (whole other subject entirely). In short, a huge TB with a HUGE turbo can be tricky to drive accurately because the power becomes more difficult to regulate. That makes it a pain in the ass around corners, for example.

Sounds like you've done more homework than me on this so I'll leave well enough alone. I take your point about the Sti's and Evos out there running the 75mm TB, but I would have thought that because of their better VEs than the 4ZE1 motor they could afford to run a tighter spec TB. But again I'll be guided by your expertise. I guess in my case I'm torn now between chasing outright top end power or something just short of top end power with more driveability. Still deciding. You provide great info and write-ups btw. Always interested to read what you have to say.

ImpulseRocket89 · Post by **ImpulseRocket89** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:45 pm

Just because I have done math and research doesn't mean I am correct either. We all know that just because something may look good on paper doesn't mean that it will not also work in reality. Also consider that we are dealing with a bit of an unknown factor too with these engines. We don't have thousands of hours of research, companies producing parts and racing with them to really go by. Even though there are a few built 4Z's out there the information is sparse and varied, so we have to kind of play a guessing game.

As far as the VE thing, you kind of have the idea crossed a bit. An engine with a lower VE will have a lower demand or ability to flow air and could thus use a smaller TB. The Evo, although it has a higher VE, is still also a smaller engine in displacement too. Not to mention, the new VE of said 2.6 with larger valves, larger bore, much more aggressive cam profile, etc. is a bit of an unknown too.

In the end, you could be right and maybe my 75mm TB will not quite flow enough to realize my power goals. I am trying to strike that delicate balance of power and driveability, so I am using math and information and a little bit of faith on top to see what happens, and using all of that information trying to match up every aspect of my build to work together within that balance. The faith part also comes from basing some of my design choices off of the 2.5L STi platform as it is of similar displacement that also has, I believe, a similar VE range of our engines fully modified. The most popular size for higher powered STi's here is a 75mm tb.

Oh, and if it makes you feel better, I went through that same debate for quite a while with my turbo decision between the 8374 and 7670. Both would be great turbos and would work well with a built 2.6, so in the end I had to simply ask myself what I wanted, what I could live with, and live without. Since I want to potentially road race/solo race my car, responsiveness and powerband won against total power. That doesn't mean that said bigger turbo wouldn't work good either. The hardest car in the world to build is the all-rounder. It will never be Excellent at any one thing, but if you pull it off it can be darn good at all of them. I will probably ask myself for a long time to come if I shouldn't have gone with the 8374 too lol

ImpulseRocket89 · Post by **ImpulseRocket89** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:13 pm

To expand on my point, I will let you in to the world of my choices based on my goals. Everything from my cam grind choice, turbo choice and size, ideas for intake manifold design, the weight of the flywheel even, has been down to that initial goal.

Turbo Choice I elaborated on above.

Cam Grind. I chose to have my cam ground to Suprf1y's 3rd of 4 available profiles. which is the .480" lift 232 duration at .050 If he has one between that and the 500/260 profile available now..I may get that instead. I want something to work well with the turbo I have and the RPM range I want to run in.

"Lift in inches, duration at .050"

440/218 torquer/street power, mildly rough idle
465/224 street/strip type grind, rougher idle
480/232 street/strip/excellent midrange-needs gearing rough idle
500/260 insane top end race only

Stock is 390/200"

Obviously we have already gone over intake manifold design to some extent, but my choices for shorter runners comes from basic high performance turbo applications. Because air is being forced into the cylinders the need for harmonics tuning is mostly null, so having the straightest and shortest path to the valve reduces runner volume and thus resistance and as a result it actually aids in turbo response (as well as power). Many manufacturers are going to this style now on turbo cars from the factory for those same reasons. This is one rare situation where power AND responsiveness are helped. Plenum volume is the real factor, and one I am still trying to work out lol.

The throttle body size, as said above, is part of that compromise as well in the intake system.

The flywheel choice I made, instead of a custom aluminum unit that weighs less than 10 lbs, was the 14lb Steel unit that is sold by thomas4parts. It will give better response and a little more power to the wheels, but without being so light that it would get annoying in driving around town.

The list goes on, but you can see a trend for my trading insane all out power vs. responsiveness and driveability.

Post by **Piazza_man** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:30 pm

As you can tell engine building isn't my expertise. From the outset I always had the intention to have a professional engine builder do this job for me. An engine builder who obviously knows 4zE1s and builds superquick packages no less. While this line of thinking has not and will not change I believe your knowledge and input it will at least help me understand my own engine build better when that time comes, and perhaps be in a position to question the status quo. To that end your detailed input is an invaluable reference and path for others (and me in particular) to follow. Soren's engine build (albeit time time ago) was a damn good start (the goddfather of 2.6 builds/conversions if you will), but your build will bring this to a whole new level. And this the level I've been looking for. As you correctly pointed out there aren't that many good examples out there. And the best thing is everything you've said make sense. You have already sparked enough ideas for my build.Anyway enough of my gibberish, and I apologise that you have to waste time correcting me all the time. Maybe I should spend more time reading and less time posting up crap