free hit
counters
CHANGES's Content - The Lotus Forums Jump to content

CHANGES

Full Forum Member (FFM)
  • Content Count

    1,350
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by CHANGES

  1. Just bumped into this post. Its nice when customer's is pleased.. I had to do a double take on the third pic, the one posted above .. Then I realised it was the Esprit roof reflecting the inside / ceiling and up and over door of @RichardJGC garage. So for those curious or interested in how Monaco White can achieve a clarity / depth usually only found in darker colours , We may need a specific thread , 'off topic for this one' .. uhmm , Something to reflect on...
  2. The paint code error is just that , it does happen. As for the colour shading on you Esprit , its a lottery.. The situation is already apparent by the many shades you see on NM repairs . Most yellow's and red's are made up of several pigments . the ratio's of each can vary to provide comparative shade . Unfortunately you can use the same pigment mixing code in two different product suppliers and get completely different shades.. Trying to tint such a wide number of pigments is a painters nightmare , even when you get it correct on the stick , it will dry two shades darker.. Trial and error on a paint out card is the only way , down side is this can take a long time , sometime days .. Even then, when put in a filter light situation it won't match . As for solid or clear over base, That will depend what the factory did .. However for any repair clear over base is the best solution . This will allow you to blend out the repainted section over a wider area disguising any small shade errors . To do this you will need to use pure un-tinted clear coat , otherwise you will get a filter effect changing the shade again.. As for using rattle cans , Good luck with that .. I would love to say there is an easy solution to get the results you want by the methods you suggest , but their just isn't.. You may be able to disguise the section repaired to look better , but i fear you may need to contract a professional to get the best results.. This will be expensive, so as long as you realise a DIY repair is just that , with best guess colour match , your expectations should not exceed your result.. Using the original paint supplier the factory used for your Esprit is a good start. Hope this helps and it all works out to your satisfaction ..
  3. Uhmm , did someone mention Lego .. Got lots of GRP but bit short on Lego.. Think @Sparky had the midlands supply.. Lots like necessity needs the mother of invention, How can I help ..
  4. It can but as you say needs other parts... I did mine quite a long time back, to memory I only used the later mounting plinth. However seem to recall it also needed some finesse work as well .. Mine has been fitted and working fine for several years... The only issue I found was it works 5 times smoother and more efficient than the early type, but i decided to just put up with that .
  5. It can be done with a quality aftermarket unit , Unfortunately you can not expect it to just slot in ... You need to do a bit of customising to the new aerial unit to achieve the fit required for the tight space , along with some minor fettling within the aperture itself.. With a bit of time and patients it is achievable producing a superb quality result that looks just like the original .. Unfortunately it can take quite a bit more than a couple of hours, even with the door removed.. It all comes down to how original you want it to be ... I had no choice, The customer requested it to be done, and as close to original as possible so a solution had to be found ... So at least you know it is achievable if you persist with it ..
  6. You won't see them from the radio aperture , you will need to remove the lower sections to see in .. they won't stand out easy you will need to look for them .. use the pic i posted as a guide . They will be circa 3'' back from the vertical point of front side mount bolts .. If you try to lift and they are attached you will rip the section of you GRP chassis tunnel away .. The body should lift very easy when all bolts are undone , When you have lifted 1'' or so you may need to move chassis forward 1/2'' to clear the front top wishbone pivot bolt , which can catch in the recess adjacent to them..
  7. Have you got the two vertical bolts infront of the gear leaver under the radio consul on yours, these are 17mm AF and can be extreacted without taking all the center counsul out but a bit fiddly ... Not fitted to all models ,, worth looking at from what you describe .. See pic with little red flags showing position
  8. @Andyww I call that great research and development, Shame they did not carry it forward onto the Stevens model..
  9. I bet that was a surprise.. Many years ago I lost my bonnet.. And i never saw it go .. Yes i was looking forward , but it happened so fast i never saw it , only heard the wind noise change.. I had to go back 3/4 mile to find it impaled on the central reservation barriers ... and yes it just ripped the hinge plates straight out of the bonnet ... Ohh, one of the many joys of owning an Esprit. ( I may have been doing a bit more than 50 mph at the time ) At least you were saved any damage ..
  10. I believe there were comparable test done many years ago , not sure of figures . However I found improvements when setting up with 104/104 over 100/110.. You need to remember 100/110 was done for emission reasons for the USA market . To save on costs Lotus did a one fits all policy , this mean't the Esprit was built to meet the tightest emission laws it would encounter in the markets sold in. We did some back to back on an S4, which after fitting verniers with 104/104 cam timing and Alunox exhaust manifold , managed to achieve 300 bhp using oem ECU set up and 1 bar boost and not much else . As Ian said , any cam timing is only an approximation based on where the closest dot alignment at TDC can be achieved .. The moment an engine no longer has the original factory head gasket format , the cam timing goes out .. only slight but not perfect .. The only other way to keep this spot on is to measure your original gasket , get the crushed dimension of your new gasket , and then skim the head for the different thicknesses ..... Assuming the new gasket is thicker, and the timing was cock on before. When you consider the allowance on the original head skim and gasket replacement was 0.018'', it does not take much working out to realise , with what is available in gaskets , and how many times a head has been skimmed , chances are cam timing will change .. When i do a customers engine, i always do a cam timing check before disassembly , In most cases the cam timing is not to spec.. This gives me some idea on machining history before i start , I always recommend 104 /104 and verniers on rebuild , as a result those all get spot on cam timing . They all seem to run smoother , i expect this is to do with timing accuracy and the 104 set up .. On emissions , i have not had any issues with 104 set up on MOT's in the UK .. Great job @Chillidoggy , well thought out and executed with precision .,.
  11. Fabian you must do what you feel is right... When you put forward the data as you do then you can make the figures produce the SCR you desire. I can only point out what I see in you pics, plus what you have written , then base this on what I have experience in .. A standard combustion chamber is between 40- 42 cc depending on valves and details etc , I always use the 40 figure a reasonable guide . So using your own logic that 8.0:1 SCR is your set up with a 1.2 gasket.. You now have a 1.651 gasket. The difference in volume between the two gaskets is 3.3 cc ... Your combustion chamber has reduced by at least 3.0 cc based on your measurements of 37 cc . So taking out 3 cc from the head and adding in 3.3 cc from the gasket , This will put you SCR at back to 7.98:1.. This is just basic logic nothing else . The 0.25 figure i was referring to in my post was the deck height , not head skim ... 0.25 is only 0.0098'' Looking at your pics I notice the head is skimmed to the inlet seats. I have skimmed a head to just past that point which was 0.045''. This gave me a head volume of 33cc and a final SCR of 8.5:1 on that build. However that is all irrelevant. I only mention it because the head volume is crucial , I just wondered, did you remember to subtract the extra volume caused by the valve recess voids in the pexiglass, when you made your measurement. It all adds in to the final figure .. If you did not then you can still get a basic measurement off your plexigless plate .. and recalculate.. Also did you remember to allow for the meniscus curve on your burette . I'am not a fan of guesstimates, which is why i have tried to go into detail so you can have the most accurate assessment of your engine SCR.. Only you have done the measurements and if you are confident with your chamber volume at 37 cc and have allowed factors mentioned then regardless of what the head was skimmed too we still come back to 8.0:1 .. Personally I can not put any more input to this subject , if you still feel i am wrong with all this then disregard my comments . As i said before putting it on a dyno when done will help match any anomaly and give you piece of mind.. good luck with the rest of the build ..
  12. With the greatest respect Fabian , what went on with gaskets in 1993 etc has nothing to do with what you have now.. Fact.. You now have a 1.7 gasket , you now have a 8.0:1 set of pistons with a 23.5 bowl , You say have a combustion chamber of 37 cc , you have a a 95.27 mm bore , you have a 76.2 mm stroke, and a deck height of circa 0.25 mm ... The rest is just math. You really need to concentrate on what you have in front of you , instead of looking for it fit what you would like it to be .. The fact is , even if you had left in your original pistons , grinding the head and reducing the cc to 37 would increase your CR by 0.25 to 7.75:1 . It really comes down to when you make changes , things WILL be different.. This is what i was trying to make you aware of when i pointed out the volume / CR checks to be made.. None of this is a real problem , what you have is very serviceable . You are running the forged pistons that can take extra final CR , which is just more in line with the injection charge cooled cars than your original spec. The reason for making you aware is so you can adjust you tuning parameters to suit. If you want to maintain your existing carb jetting and dizzy set up , then you would need to control your boost accordingly.. BUT... If you want to run original boost and higher final CR that is also fine , you will gain more BHP , But you would need to get it all set up on a dyno with re-jetting/choke and dizzy re-formatting. Running std boost level with higher final CR on std tuning set up will cause detonation at higher revs from running advanced and lean , it would feel really quick like that but be damaging the combustion area at the same time .. These are the sort of changes people make and don't address properly , then moan like hell when it all goes south... Now you have been there once , none of us want to see you go there again.. The advise on how to deal with what spec you have arrived at is simple... Please don't over complicate or over think this..... Just move forward and do one of the two options to facilitate the build spec you have..
  13. Sorry to bring this up again , but i can not help feel there is something amiss .. I base this on logic of 8.0:1 pistons with skimmed head will be higher than 8.0:1 not 7.7:1 .. To get an idea of where i am coming from .. lets put some base figures we normally find on a stock engine with 8.0:1 pistons into the calculator.. Bore at 95.27... stroke at 76.2... cylinder head chamber at 40cc... H/gasket 'crushed' 1.651... H/gasket 'crushed' bore...97.3... deck height 0.25... piston bowl 23.5... The result we get is 8.001:1 ... This is what we would expect to see.. Some may vary but only slight.. I can only assume the piston bowl and deck height measurement you made has at 33 may be wrong.. I work out the combined figure should be around 23.75.. This would be an easy misread to make .. Now if we Add in other measurements you made , like cylinder head volume @ 37 , and make allowances for the 33 figure being misread .. we end up with 8.283:1 This would be a more what we would expect to see. However looking at the picture of the head , it has been machined down to the inlet valve seats , I usually see a volume of just below 35 when skimmed to this , even with cut back valve seats .. .. This would give a SCR of 8.483:1 So it may be safe to assume the SCR is somewhere between the two or at least the lower of 8.283:1 .. To be on the safe side and get the best timing and fueling , I would set the turbo waste gate to account for this in your final boosted CR. On the up side , it will be a bit more responsive off boost low down . You may need to very slightly adjust you timing and low down jets , but a dyno technician will fix that very easy. It will only be slight tweaking to refine and get the best from all that you have done .. Hope this helps clear up any doubts .. Dave
  14. Yes , that is close enough .., I use 0.065'' which is a near as dam it 1.7mm .. unfortunately you have made slight error here ... The deck height is from the top of the piston crown , to the top edge on the liner. Because the piston can rock in the bore when checking, i always take a couple of measures.. 1 from the piston edge directly over the wrist pin.. 2 and 3 from 90' of wrist pin .. with 2 and 3 , I rock the piston taking two measurements on both and then the average will give me measurement when piston flat. This should be the same or close to #1 measurement if different i take the average of the two . But because you measured the piston in the bore at TDC , the volume you will have come up with will be the piston bowl and deck height together in one .. In this case you only need to add it on to the gasket and the combustion chamber volume along with the swept volume, to give total volume , then calculate from there .. hope that helps .
  15. What I was trying to bring attention to, is that the focus should be on ALL points, nothing should be overlooked as they are interlinked.. With the component changes made and the work that was done on the head , there was high possibility static C/R would increase significantly .. I am not sure how much Fabian was aware this tied into the boosted final C/R and the influences it could have .. You are quite correct in saying fuel delivery and ignition timing need close attention . However by maintaining the final boosted C/R, the fuel delivery and ignition should be able to remain within the factory settings .. It is far easier to gather this sort of data during the build , even if it takes time . By doing so it make you aware of any compensatory adjustments that will be needed , as in this case boost level.. I must be honest when i say, the SCR Fabian has is a lot lower than i expected with the work done.. Not sure how an 8.0:1 piston set up with a well skimmed head can end up a 7.76 :1 .. I did notice the piston bowl volume was measured in the bore , this is quite normal and easier to do with the forged piston crown shape. However this measurement will include the deck height volume as part of.. Fabian listed this separately in his data at 3.45 mm . This is 0.136'' which also seem a bit high , i normally expect forged piston deck height at between .0.010'' and 0.040'' depending on build spec. However there are several spec changes in this build , with machining and a cross over of parts ie early block late pistons etc which will mix up the norm .. If all the data is correct then this has all worked out for the good .. I would just ask Fabian to re check data content and reaffirm . As i say , the SCR is not an issue , these all vary when machined , its just the adjustment to the boost level that is needed to keep things within the ignition and fueling window..
  16. At 7.76:1 you would probably be fine.. You could also just tweak boost back a fraction to get spot on .. You can use one of the on line calculators to give boost for required final C/R. I have to take my hat off to how quick you did all the measurements.. well done .
  17. Unfortunately a compression check will not give you the exact compression ratio. You can divide back the psi reading you get by 14,696 as a guide , but unless you calculate in the cam timing / overlap , is will just be a figure. With the valves opening and closing earlier or later your compression check psi will go up or down . Because of the machining your valve timing will almost certainly be slightly off spec, so any factory psi on comp check will be off.. The early engines were the 7.5:1 but the piston crown you have now will be for the 8.0:1 .. This will also be influenced by the deck height you have, which can be influence by other factors. Your gasket thickness is part of the calculation , but should not be seen as a compensatory factor for piston change, etc.. The thicker gasket will only offset the head skim up to circa 0.010'' .. Valve recess / cut back will lower ratio but only to a point. When doing this you have to dial in the shim clearance setting.. Std they are 0.100'' to 0.085'' , you don't really want these going below 0.060'' if you can help it.. so you see the restriction.. The only accurate way to do this is to measure whilst you still have it in bits.. Otherwise its best guess.. uhmm. It is not really that important what the actual C/R is , as long as its not silly high.. But knowing it is ... What you want to achieve is the correct final C/R under boost. This will then allow your ignition , carburetor and fuel type tuning to be in sync as designed .. Your adjustment factor will be your boost settings,.. you may have some anomalies off boost but they will be very slight and insignificant in comparison. But without knowing the exact static C/R you wont know what final boosted C/R you will be running at.. Sorry if this was a bit long winded , but i would rather you be aware of fact than carry on regardless.. Keep up the good work ..
  18. Looks very nice Fabian , , what extra's have you had done , other than change the valve material spec. ( so much can be done , it would be nice if you could list it all with photo's ) ... I would also be interested on the chosen combustion chamber volume , looks like its had a good skim and valve seats cut back.. You will need to know this , along with your piston bowl volume , deck height and chosen head gasket squish size , to calculate you static compression ratio. Especially as you have changed piston type and block as well . When you have your static C/R figures , you can then calculate your waste gate boost setting requirements to give the desired final C/R. Otherwise you could be showing stock boost level but running much higher final C/R.. I would also put a bit of thread sealer on those grub screws. Keep up the good work.. D
  19. This is totally correct , and as we discussed, it does make a difference, maybe very small , but all the little things do add up .. They are not.. basically they fully shut . However they never produce a full cut of .. The stop screw should be set to just touch when they are fully closed , This will prevent the return springs making the BAV have a forced contact with the TB its self.. In the past i have seen TB's with marks from the BAV in the TB inner wall , at the contact points.. You will always find one balance screw on each TB fully shut , the other cracked to balance the inconsistency in assembly.. Once you have disassembled them this original setting go out the window.. Also you will find over time even with the filtered air that passes through the bleed hole past the adjustment screw , it still gets a deposit which will change the flow characteristics.. This is normal and found in just about every TB set up I check.. This is true when the cars were new and being serviced by the dealers... Rest assured any post tuning that will have been done would of included checking the individual balance criteria.. The anti tamper screws will have been removed and replaced if adjustment was needed.. Now these cars have so many years and miles on , it would be prudent to check , This is done with a throttle flow meter , which is a very simple process to do .. Once you have balanced and set the whole system you should have tick over controlled by the ECU via the IAC valve . If this tick over is to low , I would first check the IAC function , if all is ok then any micro adjustment can be made via the stop screw or the by pass balance screws .. It is very rare to need any micro adjustment if everything is working as it should. However , most of these cars are circa 30 years old and still feature original injectors , which have never been cleaned or replaced, along with other ignition parts like the coil packs .. All of these over time deteriorate , so having a micro adjustment facility can be useful.. to compensate. I must stress that you need to be aware of what you are doing and if unsure consult a reputable dyno technician to do final set up, then do a power test to clarify all functions are performing correctly.. A power run is the only way to insure your ECU is calibrating the engines functions correctly ie. secondary injectors coming in on time , The TPS function is calibrated within range ETC ETC,, So if unsure just Ask someone . !!! A useful bit of kit to have
  20. Just to clarify a point. The polished s/s part is a reflector. The asbestos bit is the heat shield.. There should be an air gap between them to also help dissipate heat.. Failure to fit the bit you chucked will result in the s/s reflector being able to come into contact with your leads.. This part WILL get very hot from the turbo, and WILL damage your leads over time. Lotus would not have gone to the cost and trouble of having it made and fitted if it was not essential ... If you choose not to use the actual part , then i strongly suggest using an alternative.. It will save ignition issues at later stages
  21. A good way of saving this sort of area is by metal plasma spraying. This can build up the surface without introducing the heat levels that cause distortion.. It is quite common to see this used on classic cranks that have reached their machining limits. Once a suitable thickness has been achieved the area can by ground to size.. If in the case of thrust bearings the area is still on the low side ( needing thicker than available thrust bearing ) , then get someone to machine from a bronze cord the required thickness, job done .. This process is nothing new , vintage and veteran car restorers along with historic race engine builders do it quite often when no replacements are available ..
  22. Simply use one of these , with spec from bolt.. Or ask ARP for torque equivalent .
  23. This is so true and also very important.. If only a few basic adaption parts are available , then the concept is incomplete and untested.. With anything development wise there is always issues, these only get ironed out when someone seriously tests them .. If kennady have not done full make up testing with data to back up , then all you are buying is a box of bit that you have got to try and make work.. This is a very interesting option with great potential along with info from people who have fitted and tested .. What would be interesting would be the details on clamp and release loading's, along with torque capabilities.. The std V8 plate from AP racing had a corrugation section within the friction plate to make it more compliant than a race clutch , but as was said can still be a bit sharp compared to other clutches.. When asking AP for the 550 ft lb version , i was presented with a version that did not have the corrugation section due to space constraints, which made it less compliant so more of a race clutch.. To offset this we introduced a staggered plate engagement to make it more compliant. This does work well but will wear one plate quicker than the other. So I for one would be very interested in an alternative that bolts straight in , as long as it can take the higher torque levels. As for the lightened fly wheel , I agree a lot can be facilitated from doing this . Personally i would not go for the letter box option, I have seen far to many of them fail over the years , straight drilling's can achieve similar results with better reliability.. Pic of custom light weight drilled chrome molly version for the 4 pot engine using the V8 clutch .
  24. I have recently had this discussion on another Forum with someone who was adamant that it could be fitted with nothing more than re drilling the original flywheel .. When i pointed out all the other aspects and technical details to doing such a conversion he got very insistent and insulting... Funny how some don't want constructive advise and have all the answers.. At least on here we have people looking at the wider picture and exploring what is needed.. As someone who has traveled the road of transmition woe's due to performance upgrades , i have looked at most options to fit my needs.. Most of the time an alternative was binned due to drive shaft alignment, if this is not right then you generate all sorts of issues, and moving engines backward or forward is just not practical.. Primary shaft length is always an issue when fitting an adaption plate, shoving and extension on it is a cobble and will fail , so a custom flywheel with spigot bearing fitted within to match up the two halves is the common solution. Next is clutch.. If you have upgraded your power enough to break the tranny , then your clutch will not be man enough for the job and will need sourcing at the same time. This will all need to fit on the Porsche primary shaft and within the Porsche bell housing as it is not detachable from the box like the UN1 is. You will also need to adapt the clutch release mechanism to match the chosen clutch with the gear box and the Esprit clutch pedal ratio.. These are just a few points you need to be aware of even before you start manufacturing rear mounts , gear levers , selector mechanisms and sourcing suitable cables, not to mention adapting drive shaft fitment. All of the above would be very interesting project to do and a great challenge.. BUT, will it fix the initial problem ' power/torque limits' .... In most cases NO .. Some are a bit higher and better than the standard UN1 027 but not by much and the gear ratios / final drive don't all suit the Esprit set up.. The 987 6 speed box out of the 3.2 pre TDK is the best of the Boxster options , however this offers less than some of Audi 01E box's.. What you also need to know is there are several variants of all of these , which all look the same from the outside.. internally very different.. When buying second hand you really need to be sure of what you are buying , because they wont have it back when you have fiddled with it.. Another point to consider is , any second hand box you buy, should be rebuilt to insure it is not faulty, so cost that in . If you buy a new or specialist recon box , they ain't cheap.. The second hand box's on the net for under £1k are usually tired or broken , so you are taking a chance and will need to factor in the rebuild cost and parts. Which brings us back to the UN1... When you drive your Esprit sensibly , you should have no issues. If you drive it hard but have considerations for its weaker points , you will minimise any issues.. But if you are regularly developing over 400 ft lb spike torque loads and want to use it , then do a UN1 upgrade .. There are more options becoming available with on going developments and testing being done . There are GTO , Elite Racing and Holloway already available , all well proven with ratio options etc.. These kits only cost the same as buying a decent standard 987 box but without fitment issues .. There are even higher spec's you can go to using the UN1 as featured in the 412 thread in Esprit chat section . These do come at a price, but when fully costed out will probably end up cheaper than a donor conversion with comparable torque capability, but without the fitment hassle... There are stronger ring and pinion options available . You can strengthen and treat your original as the cheapest option, or have a special high torque set made as I have .. Used along side one of the aforementioned gear kits , you should be able to hopefully meet all your torque requirements.. To summarise , A 3.2 ltr 987 Boxster develops 236 ft lbs of torque through its gear box, the 3.5 ltr V8 Esprit develops upward of 300 ft lbs through its gear box.. If you are having power issues with the Esprit box, Why are you looking at the Boxster box. I believe a lot more research and proper testing will need to be done with the 987 box before it can be considered as a stronger alternative .. This is Just my personal input on the subject based on my own experiences and data available .. Hope it helps shed some light on what is available and involved..
×
×
  • Create New...