Alternative Engine Swaps...

stingray250 said:
Been using 14/16ga primary
Click to expand...
That's the same as I use typically. The manufacturers like to keep the wires as thin as they can, for cost reasons. Works great when everything is new but after a lot of years aging, not so much.
Last night I started diagraming the layout for my ECU and related harnesses.
 
Loving your build, but to be brutally honest I have to say the choice of a Home Depot bus bar lets down your otherwise primo project. Would much prefer a marine grade product here, or one of the multipoint bus bars that Dr Jeff linked to.

Don' take this as "criticism" but as encouragement and exhortation to aspire to excellence! :)
 
I'm still undecided on the choice of multi-grounding options. I'll be using quite a few of them; one for the chassis grounds in the engine bay, one for the isolated aftermarket ECU/EFI grounds in the spare tire well, one for the lighting and other body grounds in the front, another for those items in the rear, and I guess at least another one or two near the dash/fuse box areas (including any BWM's). And all of this for three current project vehicles.

Admittedly when I threw out a bunch of suggestions, the Home Depot buss bar seemed a bit questionable. But after seeing them installed in the above photos they don't seem that bad really. Better than I imagined and in a way I like them. I saw quite a number of much worse options when I was looking. And there is a considerable cost difference between these and the marine type units when you consider the quantity required for a custom build (especially a consideration on my "low budget" project). So I'll agree with Dan, but at the same time I'll also support the use of them. Doesn't that sound like a politician (which I'm certainly not)? Like I said, I'm still undecided.
 
They look to be a practical solution, and less clumsy than the factory "cups". I would be hesistant to use them in any exposed area in my climate. Without proper water protection, those contacts will be a nasty oxidized mess in no time. I guess soldering the wire tip would help reduce water siphoning into the wiring, but still,
 
I agree about them looking better than the factory "daisy" spiders. Also agree that soldering the wire ends is a good idea. Unfortunately the covers I saw for most of the options (those that offered a cover) were not any better than no cover with respect to corrosion protection. I viewed them more as aesthetic covers. They had wide open areas along the sides for the wares to pass through, and they were not sealed in any way. So I'm not sure if they would be much help in such environments? Might be better off using copious amounts of dielectric grease, in which case a cover might help to hide the greasy mess?
 
I don't know of any legitimate reason the cut the low beam wires. I suspect there was a short somewhere and rather that trace it down and repair it, they found it easier to interrupt the circuit the 'easy' way. I'd be a bit cautious before reinstating them with power until I knew that everything else was properly sorted. Otherwise a car fire might end up being your salvation from this demon. :D These cars tend to fraught with electrical problems.
 
stingray250 said:
Weeeeeee!!!

Took me all damn day to revamp the harness... Had to swap injector connectors and the map sensor connector along with several other repairs. This harnass was on a class 5 race car that actually ran in the Baja 1000. Have a friend out in Cali that builds race engines for most of the off road scene out that way, he hooked me up.

Engine only ran to test starting, idle, fuel and oil pressures... Coolant system not yet complete.

Everything normal so far...

Time to move on with tidying it up a bit.



Click to expand...

Engine sounds good!
I have a question or maybe a suggestion.
Have you considered a manual cam chain tensioner in place of the GM hydraulic one? In the Ecotec Performance book (early 2000s) there was a section on how to modify the hydraulic tensioner to manual operation. There was concern that under hard use and if there was a drop in oil pressure the early tensioners would release tension on the chain resulting in valves meeting pistons.
In 2013 we were at the Solo Nationals with the Fiat (L61 Ecotec) and got to talking to the Solstice GXP people and their concern was that the "upgraded" chain tensioners still would back off under long periods on the rev limiter. Where permitted they went to manual tensioners.
It's possible that this is what happened to your Ecotec in the Bug. Not sure what tensioner you are using, or if it has either of these problems.
We've been running a manual tensioner in the Fiat since 2013.
 
We went with the springs and titanium retainers but kept the stock valves and keepers. We limit revs to 7200 mostly because of the auto trans we use.
Ours is NA, 13.8:1, cams and a 72mm throttle body. Power is only in the 240 range, but as you say there is a lot of torque.

Another thing to note is that there is a lot more room in a 5 passenger Italian sedan for engine swaps than there is in an X 1/9......Well, at least after you cut the back seat area out.
 
240 HP in a old school body 500/600 sounds like more than fun to me! :) Cut out the back seat...so it is mid engined? Even more fun!!

Karl, that's 5 Italians. We tend to be small people (at least in Italy, the American version tends to be "broader"). :D
 
Mid engined.
Don't want to hijack here.
I'll post some info on the "Rear Engined" Forum, but it will probably be Tuesday.
It's nowhere near as clean as Ray's X, I don't pretend to even come near to matching his work.
 
I presume you are wiring in a healthy fan for the intercooler, will it pull in air from above or from below.

I would assume that the air above would be cooler and despite it being a low pressure zone a fan could pull enough air in. Have you considered an offset to the left periscopio type intake to bring air in from above the targa?

21BDE60C-FDD5-49BD-B971-EB00F20AF7DD.jpeg
 
kmead said:
will it pull in air from above or from below
Click to expand...
stingray250 said:
More than likely I'll scoop the undercarriage to grab and direct the flow up
Click to expand...
I've been debating this very issue for quite some time. Greater amounts of cool air is available from on top, but there may be a lower pressure in that area (although the amount of pressure difference has not been empirically demonstrated), resulting in less movement. Air from below has to pass through the extremely hot engine bay below first, but hot air rises so maybe it offers better flow.
I've consulted with specialists from Porsche Turbo tuners (similar situation), turbo intercooler experts (having mounted them in every possible location), automotive engineers (for a scientific perspective), cooling fan manufacturers, etc. And the answer seems to be...not sure. Or more accurately, about 50/50 opposite opinions.

I've decided to draw the air from above by way of a strong electric fan (running anytime the engine is running), across the intercooler, and down into the engine bay. From there the air will have some basic ducting to guide it through the engine bay toward the rear bulkhead, crossing over the oil cooler first. In my situation that rear bulkhead has been removed (opened up), and the rear trunk has been turned into an extension of the engine bay. The former 'trunk' area houses some power system related components (to help organize the layout within the engine bay), and will have a rear grill allowing air to flow out through the rear body panel (between the taillights).

I do not believe the side scoops are capable of bringing in enough air flow to be of any significant benefit. I also do not believe enough cool air can be "scooped" up from beneath the car - at least not with a extremely lowered car and not wanting to sacrifice ground clearance.
I will also be replacing the engine cover with an open screen cover. That should allow enough movement that a snorkel ("periscopio") is not needed. I won't know the outcome until everything is built. But these decisions are based on what I've learned so far, so we'll see.
 
Snazzy parts, there :D

stingray250 said:
More than likely I'll scoop the undercarriage to grab and direct the flow up and out... Pretty sure it will suffice.
Click to expand...

Se, I'm with you on this. All the experiments I did with fans, ducting, air filter locations, I had the most results with drawing air up & out the top, not the reverse. Heat likes to rise anyway, so trying to push air in the top when all the heat is naturally rising seems counter productive.

Also curious to see what Jeff comes up with for his project in this regard, based on above post.
 
Dan Sarandrea (Phila) said:
Do we have any good scientific evidence one way or the other on how much air the side scoops pull in?
Click to expand...
I wish we did. That would certainly help guide some design development. But even without true test result data to look at, there are plenty of theories to consider. ;)

This "air flow" issue has been discussed many times, both for the 'up vs down' direction of flow and for the side duct in-flow volume questions. In those prior threads there were some reports of 'testing' (although none that could be considered scientific in the strict definition). And some of it was contradictory, which is why I stated "I do not believe...". Obviously what I believe is not important, but it is what I intend to follow in my design. To be honest I don't plan on doing any testing when it is done; either it works or it doesn't. But I encourage everyone to pursue their own plans, regardless of the design. I just enjoy seeing what comes of it all. :)

For the most part I will rely on electric fans to move the air in the desired directions for the 'turbo build'. Combined with plenty of 'open' panels to allow air movement in any/all directions, heat shielding, insulation, component placement, etc, to help control thermal management.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top