Jump to content
Impact Bumpers

MaxDiesel

Members
  • Content Count

    733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MaxDiesel

  • Rank
    IB Glitterati

Profile Information

  • Location
    West Sussex

Previous Fields

  • Current 911
    1987 Carrera 3.4 in Diamond Blue Metallic, 1973 Porsche 914 1.7
  • Favourite Food
    Italian
  • Drink?
    Good red wine

Recent Profile Visitors

1,260 profile views
  1. Just measured on mine - distance between bumper over-rider and the end wall of my garage with the car at floor level and then at max lift height: As per above it moves slightly in the direction of the non-roller end - its less than I thought though - around 110mm total. This is between extremes - and mostly at top of the height range due to the geometry. For an engine drop I doubt the forward/backward movement would be more than an inch over the height range you'd use.
  2. I can check this on mine - I'm pretty sure it moves the car a little towards the fixed non-roller end as it lifts, but probably only around a foot from min to max. I'll check.
  3. Hi Chris Yes - I'm really pleased with the BH Repairs lift - for the type of work I'm doing on the 914 its been ideal. Being able to move the car to the right height for each bit of welding is a massive help. Also dropping the suspension off was a breeze - the combination of lift and a Makita impact driver made for rapid progress!! I haven't used it for an engine drop yet but I'm sure it'll work well for this too - it'll save the hour or so I spend jacking up one and then the other to get the car on my big axles stands. For me it was important to be able to move the lift between two garages - I'm not sure I'd want to be driving over it each time I park the car though. For when the lift's not in use I'm planning to stand it vertically against the wall - I just need to figure out exactly how I'll do this! Cheers Matt
  4. You really need much better quality borescope images than those to make a judgement. Having said that.... I'd say there's enough there to be concerned and warrant further investigation - particularly if the other bores don't look like that. Has he got images from the other cylinders for comparison ?
  5. I've got some large wooden wheel stands that I lift the front end onto ahead of jacking the back up. They very solid - made from 8"x2" and "4x"4 with a wide footprint and integral chocks. There's photos of them in my rebuild threads. They keep the car at a sensible angle when you jack up the rear to the required height. You're welcome to borrow these - they're just sat in my garden at the moment!
  6. Thanks Phil ! 👍 If you do take the plunge with your engine then you're welcome to borrow any of the Porsche specific tools I've got - looks like you're not too far away.
  7. My rear suspension rebuild thread here:
  8. +1 For paint stripper - that’s what I’ve always used. Cover the pistons and leave for half an hour - then use scrubbing brushes etc Nitromors definitely isn’t as good as it used to be so I’d try and get a trade product. Toothbrush also works well for the ring grooves with no chance of damaging them.
  9. Sounds like you've got the air bleed very close then. Re the warm up fueling curve - yes Wayne will be able to adjust this. He'll need to start with the engine cold to do this - sometimes it can take a few warm-up cycles to get right. You could try adjusting the idle AFR using the mixture screw in the MAF controller - however any change you make will effect both hot and cold... so any adjustment you make to improve the cold/warm up rich running might make it too lean when hot. For this reason it's probably best to leave it to Wayne as he can change the shape of the fuel curve versus temp in the ECU.
  10. That's good - show's you're on the right track hopefully. The original air bleed screw in the throttle body allows very fine adjustment - I doubt the valve you have does the same so you'll probably need to tweak it in fractions of a turn... the acid test is having no change in hot idle speed when you remove the jumper wire - that shows you have it spot on. @SP72 Good call to check the CHTS - the temp reading from the CHTS is the main axis on the map that controls the ICV during warm up - so if it's not right it'll mess up the warm up characteristic. Another possibility could be... when it was remapped the warm up fueling curve was increased, versus MAF measured air, as there was un-metered air going in via the manifold leak.
  11. That looks just the job. Have you tried setting up the idle air flow with a bridge wire in the test port ?
  12. It depends what you want to do in the long run - if you want to be able to tweak the calibration yourself or use your local rolling road, then switching to a modern ECU is a big plus. The guys that can connect to 1980's motronic systems are few and far between now. We had a cupboard full of 1980's Motronic calibration equipment at work (e.g. Dataman S4).... unfortunately it all got binned in the late 90's when we didn't think we'd need it any more ☹️ You can get close to the same result with the original Motronic but you're reliant on guys like Wayne to get you there. Re the better refinement with an original AFM - he's right in some cases... it depends what your system is made up from. The original VFM units are naturally damped due to the weight of the barn door flap and the return spring. Consequently they give a very smooth volume flow signal that requires little or no software damping in the Motronic ECU. Some MAF units have built in electronics that discriminate between positive and negative flow (pulsation) and also apply some damping. Other MAF units output the raw signal and rely on SW in the main ECU to do all the signal processing - this is more common now as ECUs have so much processing power onboard. So - if you fit a cheap modern MAF, which has no internal signal processing, and apply a minimal signal correction to emulate a VFM signal it will not be good - the signal will fluctuate at a rate far higher than the ECU is expecting and you'll get driveability issues. I'm guessing Wayne has encountered some like this - hence his view. The kit I put together back in 2009 (Can't believe it was 10years ago!) uses an older generation MAF unit with onboard pulse correction and damping - even then we found the signal response was too fast for the Motronic ECU so we damped it further in the SW. Having driven my car with the kit on for ~7years I can't recall any refinement issues - the only glitch was not extending the altitude calculation far enough for the highest mountain passes in Europe... which RB kindly discovered for me 😉
  13. Yes - it's made a a direct swap unit for the existing Motronic unit - you could just fit and it would run along with the MAF control unit - although it would need re-mapping for you engine mods. With an adapter loom and a calibration update you could then remove the MAF controller (and map it again...). Its a shame you're so far away - I'd be happy to give you a hand setting it up with a Canems unit.
  14. There's some more info here from when I installed the Canems ECU on mine: https://www.impactbumpers.com/forum/index.php?/topic/31221-canems-innovate-mtx-l-install-with-maf/ You don't necessarily need the Lambda kit too - I mapped mine on the road so it was essential for me to be able to log Lambda along with the other ECU parameters. The Canems ECU has always had the ability to run with a MAF rather than a VFM - seems I was the first to give it go though. I think David at Canems has helped someone else with the same set-up - he was asking me of the part number of the MAF unit I'm using not so long ago. If you switch to Canems you also have the option of going to MAP based system and do away with the MAF too. I prefer MAF for accuracy of AFR control etc.
×
×
  • Create New...