Jump to content
Do Not Sell My Personal Information


KiwiMR2

Registered Member
  • Posts

    1,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KiwiMR2

  1. Hi guys I'm at my wit's end with this car & am looking for some help........ I imported a 2002 Toyota Duet, it's really a Daihatsu Sirion badged as a Toyota. Any regardless I lost the only key for it - normally not a biggie but whoever had this made at the factory selected the Toyota immobilizer option....this also meant a transponder key. I got in behind the ignition so I could try start it & that was when I discovered it had the factory immobilizer as it would turn over but not start. Our man in Japan sent over a Toyota remote programed to that exact car, lock & unlock - when I pushed unlock the lights would flash, doors unlock, & deactivate the immobilizer as I could now start it, just not move it without the key to unlock the steering etc. Anyway the battery went flat & when I put the new on in I discovered it'd blown the main fuse - I replaced the fush & had power, problem is now although the remote unlocks & locks it no longer appears to be deactivating the immobilizer as once again it just turns over but won't start. Any idea why the remote is only performing half the job? Cheers Andy
  2. FWIW there are quite a few differences between the ST205 Celica 3sgte & the ST215 Caldina 3sgte. IMO they aren't as of yet as easy & capable to modify as the earlier generations. Still nice wagon's, better than the whales that Mitsi put out ;) The ST246 (I think) GT-4 Caldina is pretty different as well: Cheers KiwiMR2
  3. Nah....looks like a baby evo wagon but really a GSR with boot ;) Plenty kicking around NZ with evo motors in them though so certianly an option if i ever get the urge! Awesome...congrats! Yeah we got engaged in Feb....took her on a surprise holiday to Rarotonga so have a wedding to plan also, oh & the house was the 1st thing we brought after selling the MR2 as well ;) Civic VTi.....hmmm, how do you find it? Bora 1.6.......surley there are some cheap 4 door turbo hatchs around that you can still have fun in!? ST205.......made the move from sw20 to the dark side aye ;) How did you find it in comparrision to the MR2?? Cheers KiwiMR2
  4. Batty.....Batmobile; RX7 ;) I think you guys call it a "rex"...to me that means WRX though :D Yeah I've had a few mini's over the last few years but settled finally on what I'm happy with B) 1979 Mini Cooper.....modified with a mid 90's cooper fuel injected motor, and virtually EVERYTHING else from the mid 90's mini I could take across!! Also added 4 good speakers, Pioneer MP3 headunit, amp & sub, and an alarm. Cheers KiwiMR2
  5. So you guys don't call WRX's "rex"!? GTiR I assume!? Supra, Evo....all the cool cars, and you settled on a Batty?........or your not settled just yet? :D My mate just sold his batty....stock standard with 120,000 km's on the clock, had a full rebuild at around 90,000 km's when itvlew a rotor....sold it for $10K NZ. I took it for a blat prior to him selling it and was quite impressed....reminded me a lot of my MR2 but with a bit of a stronger pull & less twitchy handling wise. I'm all sold up & have a modified Mini as my daily driver & a Libero GT family wagon (take a look at some of my recent posts for pics etc.) as were starting a family....brought a house as well so yeah, thought it was time to jump back on these forums for a look around & see what you lot are all up to now :P Cheers KiwiMR2
  6. Lancer Estate.......never heard that name before :D It has a 1.8 litre 4wd turbo (4G93T) motor (rated at around 158 kw's in standard trim). Engine mods are basic....full exhaust, larger Evo front mount intercooler (factory option), pod filter. Has the 17" rims, lowered, push button starter, gauges....boost, vaccum, air fuel ratio, temp, ps, and an Apexi RSM, some upgraded ignition set up, an electric sunroof. Only future plans are to tint the windows :) Cheers KiwiMR2
  7. Well finally all running well & stripped of the barrage of stickers it's previous Japanese owner had put on it....nice, clean, and simple 8) Dunno if these are all that common over in the Uk as I don't hear anyone mention them!? Cheers KiwiMR2
  8. Hehe....yeah been a while aye, not bad down my end of the world thanks :) MR2 has gone now but thought I'd check in & see if there are any new names kicking around in the MR2 section....looks like there is Got the 2 featured in a NZ car magazine & basicly the day the mag was released I had an offer on it & just like that it was gone I e-mailed the guy who brought it in Decemeber for an update (he was planning on getting it dyno tuned with the PFC installed) and it turns out it has been off the road for a while, he found it had low compression on cylinders 2 & 3....turned out to be cracked ringlands so needed either a rebuild or replacement he opted for a new engine & had a crack at installing it himself etc. I replaced it with a Mini.....it's a 79 but in reality it's 90% mid 90's with a fuel injected cooper motor & pretty much everything else from a newer 95/96 roundnose. We JUST in the last 2 months sold the Glanza with the intention of replacing it with a station wagon (starting a family) and recenlty got a Libero......couldn't without a turbo so made sure the wagon had one ;) I'll set up a thread with the new wheels as I'm sure they are either non existant or very rare in the UK so probably of interest B) (Libero GT I'll have to have a read around & see what all the old fellas are driving now days....I see Jimlad has a batty now!! Cheers KiwiMR2
  9. Been a while since I've seen old Jimlad on the forums :D MR2 gone and I assume a batty to replace it!? I'm guessing this is a UK thing......rex as in WRX!!?? but then you say RX7, do you guys call RX7's "rex" for short? Cheers KiwiMR2
  10. Correct......I had a Dec 93 :) Cheers KiwiMR2
  11. Well it seems its very common problem on 4e-fe of that era to have a rough idle, THERE IS NO ADJUSTMENT, usually cleaning out T/B helps. Cheers KiwiMR2
  12. Hey guys I have a 1997 Carat here that needs the revs increased a tad, I have a 1998 Glanza V of which i know where the screw is but it's not in the same loaction as the Carat....anyone able to post a pic of where it is? Cheers KiwiMR2
  13. KiwiMR2

    Big List!

    I had a PFC on my Gen III briefly prior to selling it, IMO Motec would be the best option if your set on those sort of power figures. Cheers KiwiMR2
  14. I'd agree with most, IF the MR2 had a spot on perfect launch then I'd like to think it would JUST win a quarter drag, bog the launch and once the zx gets to the top of 2nd into 3rd I'd expect to see it pulling past. I wouldn't take one on on the motorway though. In the twisty's I'd take the MR2 hands down though, the zx is just to heavy & whale like to match the nible MR2. Cheers KiwiMR2
  15. KiwiMR2

    Big List!

    Not on the CT20b, I'd say with exhaust, intake, cooling, an ebc & aftermarket ecu you wouldn't need to go over 18 psi, a healthy Gen III with the above mods should net 300 RWHP on 16-18 psi. Imnot a big fan of antilag either....just a turbo eater. You should be plesently surprised with the "streetability" of the 20b once all you basic mods are done. IMO once you upgrade to a bigger turbo is the time you need to get the bigger injectors, AFAIC the OEM fuel pump is fine for 850cc, I know of at least 4 other MR2's running 850's on the OEM pump with no issues. Cheers KiwiMR2
  16. I 2nd that, Evo III would be mu choice :) Cheers KiwiMR2
  17. Im guessing it will be a Blitz KKK K3T turbo :) If so then good for upto about 450hp and not very laggy, if it is then it's a great upgrade :) Cheers KiwiMR2
  18. The following is long and Im sure many of you won't read it all BUT it does pose some interesting questions AGAINST charge cooling, Im not sure which way I'd swing if I had the choice again......for up to 300 RWHP I think I'd stay air to air. Also a lot of people realise the significant advantages of w/a in a mid mounted car Care to quantify those "significant" advantages? Do they include extra cooling system drag, added weight, additional failure points, reduced efficiency, greater tendency to heat soak under prolonged boost? While you're at it, would you care to explain why Ferrari & Porsche used Air to air I/Cs on their mid/rear engined cars, or for that matter why all the F1 turbo cars used Air->Air, with the exception of the early Renaults which used series charge cooling before dropping the Water->Air component after 2 races? It's not that I don't think that W/A has it's place, it's just that no one has yet shown that you can't get the cooling required by using a properly sized Air->Air unit mounted in the stock location. Instead of bothering to do adequate research on the topic, people assume that by the looks of it you can't get adequate airflow through the side vents, which is obviously not the case as the intake also has to breath through there. IMHO Water->Air has as many disadvantages as it has advantages, and, apart from drag racing and dyno queens, none of the advantages are significant. Seeing as I care about neither dyno figures, or living my life 1/4 mile at a time, I'll stick with the Air-> Air solution, though perhaps not in the stock location Alright, I didn't mean that it was better in all circumstances, but it does have many advantages, for instance the ability to make use of the area at the front of the car that sees a lot of airflow, Airflow, or pressure??? Just because the front has a high pressure, doesn't mean it has a high pressure differential and therefore high flow, also there is the issue of cooling system drag. You might have to to explain what you mean by cooling system drag, are you talking airflow through the radiator? Cooling system drag, as in drag created by the cooling system, not as insignificant as most people would assume, in most cars it makes up around 15% of the total drag, in a low cd car like the SW20 it would probably be higher. Also the long periods of boosting that create heat soak in a water/air system are the sort of things you'd find on a race track, and I certainly don't remember saying anything about w/a being superior for race use. Also these can be found on the streets, my favourite back road is about 10kms of twisting roads that see 80% or more throttle for a large percentage of the time. I used to have a image of the log which showed how long the stock I/C took to heat soak and how fast it recovered. Even with that severe abuse it didn't exceed 70°C, which considering how much !Removed! people pour on the stock I/C is a lot better than anyone would expect. I said it had significant advantages, I should've added depending on circumstances. In a circuit race car w/a certainly wouldn't be ideal but in a street driven mr2 it has definite advantages that shouldn't be overlooked. Can’t say I agree that it has any advantages for a street driven MR2, sure people should consider it, but for 95% of the people out there with the stock ECU, raised boost, or maybe a modified CT26, even the stock I/C is adequate. And upgraded side mount would take car of most of the remaining ones. But since you mention it, you'd be a fool not to consider w/a in a serious drag car when you can do exactly that, fill the system with ice and get ridiculously low intake temps for just a couple of kg increase in weight. To do it properly you'd need around 10l of spare capacity in the system, so it's more than a couple, more like about 15kgs of extra weight, though possibly it'd still be worth it if you were searching for that last drop of HP, not much use to the average punter that is still running the stock ECU though. Now if we start talking about series charge cooling, then maybe I might be prepared to admit that W/A has it uses, but IMHO on it's own it's not the panacea that the aficionados make it out to be, especially when nobody has presented any hard data of the flow, or lack of through the side vents. Which is why I take issue with people proclaiming that it's not a suitable for most applications. That's just another typical case of proposing a solution without first determing what the problem is, or indeed if there is any problem. This is far too common an occurence in the world of MR2's. I prefer Air/Air over Air/Water charge cooling, it's more efficient Do you have any data to support this? I ask as I've been asked a bazillion times which is better and I can only provide my opinion. I have fittings before and after my WTA intercooler for both airflow and coolant but still haven't had a chance to monitor any of them and get some good efficiency info. Ahh, the thorny question of efficiency. There is an answer to this question but it's not as simple as comparing inlet/outlet temps and plotting the results, that tells you little about the heat capacity of the system and only gives an indication of it's overall effectiveness at one small point, basing a decision on such flawed data isn't a sensible approach, and the amount of data required for a decision to be made requires a lot more analysis than the average car enthusiast can cope with. Short answer is that if there are no space constraints air/air will perform better and is the best choice unless you wish to drag race or play dyno queens in which case you can cheat by using ice water or even connecting to a tap when on the dyno. If you want proof of air/air being better, just look at the turbo era F1 cars, the only team to try water/air seriously was Renault, and then only in series with a A/A I/C. That lasted no more that a few races before they solved the packaging problems and reverted to Air/Air. If there was any gain (no matter how small) in W/A then they would have used it. When it comes to the SW20 then we run into the problem of lack of room for a large enough core (not lack of airflow IMO) so the situation is far from clear cut. Efficiency as it's usually quoted for I/C's is not really efficiency at all it's a % temp drop and as such only applys at that particular point in the flow map. Efficiency as a physicist would define it is a much more useful tool for comparison purposes as it allows you to examine what would happen under varying conditions without need to map all those conditions. Such efficiency is defined as follows; A given mass of a gas (in this case air) at temp A when combined with the same mass at Temp B will have 100% efficiency if the resulting temp is (A+B)/2. So if we assume that I/C Inlet temp is 120°C and ambient is 20°C then for the same mass of air flowing over the I/C as is flowing through it a 100% efficient cooler would have an outlet temp of 70°C. To get to a desired temp of 40°C we would need 4 times the mass of air flowing over the core (120+4*20)/5. if the I/C was 80% efficient then it would require 5 times the flow over the core. For a 500HP turbo engine that equates to around 1.2m3 per second, doesn't matter where to place the heat exchanger you are going to have a hard time getting that sort of flow through it so you will have to live with a slightly higher intake temp at those power levels. An Air/Air core only has two heat transfer interfaces, air->core and core-> air. A Water/Air I/C has 4, air->core, core->water, water->core, core->air, for each interface the efficiency drops, then add in the heat added by pumping the water at pressure. This means for the same temp drop the heat exchanger needs to work harder. As it's ultimately and air/air exchange with water as a transfer medium then you need to increase the flow over the heat exchanger core to compensate. Which increases cooling system drag and requires an even greater flow over the radiator to compensate for the increased temps (unless you mount the heat exchanger elsewhere), you also have to get rid of the extra air which can be detrimental to the front downforce if you just dump it along with the rest of the cooling air. So if you have front mount I/Cs of the same dimensions with the same flow over the core the Air/Air will be more efficient. Depending on the mass of water the water/air system may take longer to heatsoak, but it will also take longer to recover. Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:40 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RunningRich wrote: fivebob wrote: you're this years dux from the akane school of engineering, Do you think he will get the reference? Probably not, but as long as he understands it's not a compliment on his mechanical knowledge it serves it's purpose, besides which he should consider himself lucky, I usually don't fire a warning shot RunningRich wrote: fivebob wrote: I prefer Air/Air over Air/Water charge cooling, it's more efficient Do you have any data to support this? I ask as I've been asked a bazillion times which is better and I can only provide my opinion. I have fittings before and after my WTA intercooler for both airflow and coolant but still haven't had a chance to monitor any of them and get some good efficiency info. Ahh, the thorny question of efficiency. There is an answer to this question but it's not as simple as comparing inlet/outlet temps and plotting the results, that tells you little about the heat capacity of the system and only gives an indication of it's overall effectiveness at one small point, basing a decision on such flawed data isn't a sensible approach, and the amount of data required for a decision to be made requires a lot more analysis than the average car enthusiast can cope with. Short answer is that if there are no space constraints air/air will perform better and is the best choice unless you wish to drag race or play dyno queens in which case you can cheat by using ice water or even connecting to a tap when on the dyno. If you want proof of air/air being better, just look at the turbo era F1 cars, the only team to try water/air seriously was Renault, and then only in series with a A/A I/C. That lasted no more that a few races before they solved the packaging problems and reverted to Air/Air. If there was any gain (no matter how small) in W/A then they would have used it. When it comes to the SW20 then we run into the problem of lack of room for a large enough core (not lack of airflow IMO) so the situation is far from clear cut. Efficiency as it's usually quoted for I/C's is not really efficiency at all it's a % temp drop and as such only applys at that particular point in the flow map. Efficiency as a physicist would define it is a much more useful tool for comparison purposes as it allows you to examine what would happen under varying conditions without need to map all those conditions. Such efficiency is defined as follows; A given mass of a gas (in this case air) at temp A when combined with the same mass at Temp B will have 100% efficiency if the resulting temp is (A+B)/2. So if we assume that I/C Inlet temp is 120°C and ambient is 20°C then for the same mass of air flowing over the I/C as is flowing through it a 100% efficient cooler would have an outlet temp of 70°C. To get to a desired temp of 40°C we would need 4 times the mass of air flowing over the core (120+4*20)/5. if the I/C was 80% efficient then it would require 5 times the flow over the core. For a 500HP turbo engine that equates to around 1.2m3 per second, doesn't matter where to place the heat exchanger you are going to have a hard time getting that sort of flow through it so you will have to live with a slightly higher intake temp at those power levels. An Air/Air core only has two heat transfer interfaces, air->core and core-> air. A Water/Air I/C has 4, air->core, core->water, water->core, core->air, for each interface the efficiency drops, then add in the heat added by pumping the water at pressure. This means for the same temp drop the heat exchanger needs to work harder. As it's ultimately and air/air exchange with water as a transfer medium then you need to increase the flow over the heat exchanger core to compensate. Which increases cooling system drag and requires an even greater flow over the radiator to compensate for the increased temps (unless you mount the heat exchanger elsewhere), you also have to get rid of the extra air which can be detrimental to the front downforce if you just dump it along with the rest of the cooling air. So if you have front mount I/Cs of the same dimensions with the same flow over the core the Air/Air will be more efficient. Depending on the mass of water the water/air system may take longer to heatsoak, but it will also take longer to recover. Confused yet. After that marathon effort I am, that's probably why Nemesis and I have been "discussing" this for the last 6 years or so, with no resolution, other than we agree to disagree I still think series charge cooling is the way to go for the SW20 so I'm half in favour of the water/air setup I just don't like the idea of using it as the only I/C. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, I would have thought a datalog of intercooler air outlet temperature would provide a fairly accurate indication of real world intercooler efficiency Not so, it takes no account of the flow over the core, was the test done on a dyno with fan assistance only, or at full speed with all fans running. Put more flow over the core via fan assistance/higher speeds or take the tests after sitting for five minutes with no flow over the core and the results will be different. You cannot deduce from the data how much flow over the core is required to stop heatsoak and/or get the temps to the desired range. Contrast this to knowing the transfer coefficient. From this you can determine how much flow over the core is required, when heatsoak will set in, and what your likely intake temps will be if you know the flow over the core, far more useful, unless your a product marketer that is. At a guess, I would say that the front heat exchanger of my water to air system has a frontal area at least 4 times larger than the largest core that will fit in the stock side vent. That means it has at least 4 times more exposure to fresh cooling air than a side vent mounted intercooler and is thus substantially more efficient. Granted a front mount will have better prospects of cooling but frontal area isn't as important as surface area to volume ratio, and frontal area without flow is next to useless. Flow requires a pressure differential which means that the outlet must be at a lower pressure than the inlet or it won't work. That's where front mounts have a problem, there's already a lot of heated air to remove and the radiator is a big restriction and you don't want to exit the air under the car for aerodynamic reasons and that leaves the wheel arches or over the bonnet. The advantage is that you can fit a bigger core to cope with the lower flow per area. Yes but your example (deleted for clarity) is based on peak hp which is also one particular point on a curve, and probably not the most appropriate point either. You are also assuming that the heat transfer coefficents are constants, which I'm not sure is correct. Not constant, but close to it, or at least you could derive an equation for it. I chose peak HP because that's where the greatest flow is required, if the system can cope with that then it should be able to cope at all other flows. Water has a substantially greater ability to absorb heat than air, so much more in fact as to make having twice as many heat exchange interfaces, and a possible minute increase in heat caused by pressure, irrelevant. The greater heat absorbtion capacity of water also means that the size of the charge-air cooler can be reduced substantially, allowing more efficient packaging and possibly reducing weight at the rear of the car. It works both ways, water has 4 times the specific heat capacity as air, while that means you need 1/4 of the mass flow though the I/C core, it also means you need 4 times the mass flow at the heat exchanger, either your core has to be 4 times bigger or the flow has to take 4 times as long through the heat exchanger core, otherwise you will not rid the coolant of the excess energy and heatsoak will result. As to the efficiency, consider this, you have an Air/Air system with 2 additional interfaces, no cooling interface has a transfer coefficient of 1 so you must lose something with the additional transfers, as the only way you can remove that heat is by having more flow over the heat exchanger or the same flow with more surface area both these result in increased cooling system drag. I also reckon the chances of there being more flow per area at the side vent than at the front radiator inlet are as likely as Akane building a 350hp 3SGE, especially when you've got a chubby intercooler sitting in there. IMO that show's a lack of understanding of aerodyanamic principles on your part, however in the MR2 world (actually the automotive world in general) that is very common so you are not alone. There's very good, though somewhat complicated, reasons why there is likely to be more flow per unit area than up front at the stagnation point, boundary layers notwithstanding. Hint the doors have something to do with it Cheers KiwiMR2
  19. Mmmmmmm....Blitz KKK :) There is an OEM Steel wheeled CT20B ;) Cheers KiwiMR2
  20. Im ALWAY'S gonna say Rev 3 ;) Jim (REV 1): 260 BHP (wheel hp or fly wheel hp??) 1. Increased boost (how much out of interest??) 2. Downpipe 3. Exhaust 4. Induction kit KiwiMR2 (REV 3): 263 RWHP 1. Increased boost (16 psi) 2. CAT-BACK exhaust (OEM cat & OEM DP still in there) 3. Induction kit Cheers KiwiMR2
  21. Bah......Im not a big fan of the CT27, still not enough making decent figures IMO. A new steel wheeled CT20B would be a better upgrade I reakon ;) Some great pointers from Jesus too!! Cheers KiwiMR2
  22. With a full exhaust & FMIC it will up the boost on it's own, you may need to get some form of boost control (EBC would be my choice) to stop it from spiking you to the fuel cut. I have noticed a lot of people seem to use different intercoolers from other cars, seems to be reasonably easy to "upgrade" over the top mount, I have my old MR2 IC sitting here....wonder if that would be an upgrade?? I have noticed the RX7 IC is also a popular choice. Cheers KiwiMR2
  23. I'd expect the Starlet to be considerably more reliable....especially in the long run. Cheers KiwiMR2
  24. Having a look around myself I seems there are more popular choices for a replacement turbo, vf10, td04s, small t3s work really well on these cars :) Upping the boost, FULL exhaust, & a FMIC is probably the most you can do prior to changing the turbo. Cheers KiwiMR2
  25. Thanks for the help I popped out in the dark and fitted it with some misc parts I had left over from the MR2.........took it for a spin & it works fine :) Not as loud as I had hoped but it's running stock boost & Im used to the MR2 on 17 psi so it's ok. Bit funny on an auto though, have to time it etc. to get maximum venting ;) Cheers KiwiMR2
×
×
  • Create New...




Forums


News


Membership