free hit
gixxer - The Lotus Forums - Official Lotus Community Partner Jump to content


Basic Account
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

More Info

  • Name
  • Car
    1989 and 2003 Lotus Esprit Turbo

Recent Profile Visitors

3,178 profile views

gixxer's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Oooo! Getting tight up front. Maybe electric water pump?
  2. The RR code 6 chip is supposed to have a 1.2 bar limit. However when the power for the ECM is disconnected for some reason, like charging the battery, the computer takes a long time to "re-learn" the boost characteristics of the big turbo. In my case, it's a gross overboost problem. What I am forced to do is to peddle the gas while watching the needle wave around the edge of the boost gauge, which is distracting. I'd rather be looking out the windshield than keeping an eagle eye on the boost gauge, as the car is accelerating like a wild thing. Eventually it learns the boost curve but it might take a couple days or weeks. I don't know if my friends car is as bad as mine, the subject never came up. Should have had the new boost controller in by now but have been lazy.
  3. Have a WC Engineering turbo on my 4 pot. Been chugging away for quite a while. Only objection to the installation is that the factory computer takes a long time to learn the boost curve. So I will be bypassing the original controls with an HKS EVC like I have on my V8. Fortunately, I have 3 years of motorcycle road racing under my belt so the big turbo hasn't killed me dead yet. Friend in Thailand has one on his S4s for quite a while as well, has had no trouble with it, however the head gasket may have given way recently. He's has some track time too, so he's not dead either. Both our cars run the red race code 6 chip, same cylinder head, oversize chargecooler, same Alunox exhaust manifold, same size fuel injectors, no cat. It's debatable how much power this combo gives, but an honest 330 hp is likely, given the fueling.
  4. The HC turbo engine had a compression ratio of 8.0 to 1. Originally the turbo was at 7.5 to 1, or some such.
  5. The reason for the "stabilizer" is to take most of the loads off the tubes, which are supposed to be more or less free floating. When you remove the link, a now cantilevered load is transferred through the tubes and their slip joints, to the flange welds and to the studs. You have now shortened the potential life of the system. However, if you choose to retain the bracket for the link, it has to be well made, well thought out, and installed well, because that will now be the load path for the weight of the turbo. The fact that the bracket has been breaking should be an obvious clue that there is indeed, some substantial loads (or vibrational loads, which are still loads) going thru that point. And by removing the bracket and link, you are simply transferring the loads elsewhere, where they are not supposed to go. Cheers Brian,out.
  6. Here's my take in it. I haven't had any problems, but.. Looks to me that the lowest rod end attach point lies more or less directly under CG of the turbo. Hence the weight of the turbo is mostly supported by the link and the angle bracket that a few people are complaining about. The primary exhaust tubes serve to stabilize the turbo on the support strut and keep it from rolling about the link and its rod ends. This leaves the primary tubes free to expand and contract-- within limits. The problem is with the angle bracket itself. Not that the material is thick enough-- it is plenty thick. It only has to support maybe 120 lbs when the car hits a pot hole. The angle bracket is rather sloppily bent-- you can see the material puckered out at the inside bend radius, and a notch in the metal periphery. When I determined that the bracket wasn't going to fit as supplied and didn't want to force it all together, I ground a a bit of material away. Then I spent some time polishing up the edges of the bend area. Looks to me like a sloppy bracket design combined with end customer installation errors. This could be sorted with almost zero effort at the factory, IMO. EDIT--BTW, they might also ease up a bit on the bend radius too...........
  7. Have changed all my idlers up front, no joy. Changed my oil recently, and the sound disappeared (as is the norm). Within a hundred miles or so, I tightened up the RH oil cooler fasteners from the front trunk area and the whine came back right there. So in a couple of weeks when I change to my aluminum radiator, I'll try to isolate the RH cooler mounts from the body as much as I can and see what happens. But-- I'm not expecting much.
  8. On my '89 non-SE, I bought a new 2-in-1 chargecooler/ air con condenser radiator and bolted it down in place of the existing air con condenser. This pushed the large single oil cooler forward, and the only way I could mount it was to invert it and attach to the upper radiator duct JUST behind the wire mesh at the radiator entry. This actually worked well enough for the street and the mild air temps where I live, but the fact that the chargecooler radiator air was being heat polluted by the oil cooler just in front of it bothered me, so eventually I changed all the plastic out and made a complete S4 front end (and rear end) conversion with the 2 oil coolers. Trying out the engine without any secondary enrichment, while using the stock GM #707 EFI computer and a functioning chargecooler system did NOT work very well. I believe the engine went dead lean even using standard boost levels. The next day I enabled an aftermarket secondary injector controller system (GReddy Rebic) and that sorted the fuel out. Later on I ditched the #707 computer and injector driver for a #708-- the SE computer. So-- It's a little bit faster with the chargecooler on, but you should be prepared to add fuel to feed the extra ponies. When you up the boost, it's a LOT faster. I'm running 1.2 bar now with a sport 300 head and a hybrid turbo, etc. Don't think I heard anybody mention the flat plate that goes between the funnel shaped diffusor and the plenum box. The SE has this plate to locate the the business end of the secondary injectors so they can spray into the plenum.
  9. Probably brake dust. -------------- About 4 years for me. They'll usually get dodgy in the rain sooner than that.
  10. Don't know. As my oil has aged a bit in my engine, the noise has come back, but it's almost acceptable now. Ever since I cleaned my oil coolers, the noise has dropped off considerably I walked around my car awhile back and, sure enough, a slight whine was audible coming from the cars' RH oil cooler. Not the LH one, only the right. My car has all the standard oil lines.... Some time in the near future, I think I'll have a little exploratory tour around the underside and see if there is any oil line to chassis metal to metal contact.
  11. About a week after I ditched the spare in my V8, it picked up a nail (my first flat tire mishap on the road in 30+ years), and the tire went flat at work in the parking garage. In place of the spare/ nuts/ jack, jack handle, I had bought a Conti Komfort Kit (or whatever) from Tire Rack. Apart from being a bit messy, it pumped up and sealed a 285 width tire just fine. The kit includes an electric pump that pumps the latex goo in as well as air. Since the latex dries and plugs up the pump line, you have to buy a "rebuild" kit to restore it to working order. It's no big deal 'tho. Since I couldn't find a new replacement tire, all four tires were changed out to a different brand, so I can't tell you if the tire guy had any repair issues with the resulting latex mess inside the tire. I might add that pulling the spare out of my '89 helps the steering-- a bit lighter. No changes were noticed in my 2003, that has power steering. Except on the weigh scales. The pic shows the Kit slotted in on top of the battery in lieu of the useless tool kit. PS, added an additional electric outlet in the engine bay so pump can reach all 4 tires.
  • Create New...