| MIATA BUILD |
|
|
 | | October 21, 2009 - The Stillen team has posted video.
Watching Brigus, a few things become obvious. First, that car simply could not put down any power in the wet. Stillen claimed 620 hp, a big task even for an AWD car in those conditions. The thing is a beast.
Secondly, I don't see how this team could have won. The navigation simply isn't up to par. There's nothing wrong with running a novice navigator - heck, we did it - but while Steve Millen is doing a great job dealing with it, he's simply not getting the sort of instructions he needs when he needs them. Watching Gander reinforces this. Put a top-tier navigator like Brian Bourbonniere in that car and I think it could have easily taken the win. Maybe some better wet tires too. But blaming the factors isn't right.
Want a comparison? Watch us through Brigus. Because of the radical difference in conditions, our time was only a few seconds slower than the GTR. Listen to the pacing of the navigation instructions and how clear they are. Remember, they're being delivered just as fast as in the GTR.
entry 705 - tags: 2009, video | | | October 21, 2009 - The 2010-14 regulations are available.
The rules are kept mostly static for five years at a time, allowing people like me to delay their Targa adventures without fear their classes will be moved out from underneath them. 2010 is time for the new rule set, and there are a few changes.
Some were expected, such as a minimum tire wear of 140. This is the same as "street tire" autocross classes, and there's quite a tire war going on in this category right now. They're not much cheaper than full-on R compound tires, but they also don't stick as well. I believe this is an attempt to slow the cars down.
Pump gas will also be required. Not a concern for me - we ran that way last year - but some past competitors have complained about problems with contaminated fuel. You're still allowed to carry your own fuel but can no longer refuel outside specified service stops.
Now we get into the interesting stuff. As expected with the fuss about handicapping and "modern cars can't win", there have been some changes. One simple one is the splitting of Modern and Classic Divisions. The organizers will essentially view the event as two races. Three, really, as Open also gets a separate win. Will this keep people from viewing the car with the lowest penalty points as the overall winner? No. But it's a good effort.
The various Categories have also been shuffled around. The year breaks for different classes have been moved a bit. Class 2 (up to 1961) is gone, merged with Class 3. A new Category has been added between ours (the old Category 8) and the newest, ranging from 1998-2004. Open used to be Category 1, now it's 0. The net effect is that we're in the same grouping of cars as before, but we're now the fourth-fastest category instead of third-fastest. Our category would be 6 in the new numbering scheme.
One of my suggestions had been to rework the rules between Standard and Modified, to make it more clear when a vintage car had been hugely modified and should run in a faster category. And the Targa organizers did something similar. Instead of just Standard and Modified, there is now Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3. On my first reading, it looks as if we'd land in Level 2 - and only barely! That category is only allowed a 10% displacement increase from stock, which means we'd be allowed to go up to 2023cc. Our engine is 2020cc. Whew! I'll have to go through the rest of the specs to be sure, but that seems to be the case.
Minimum weights have gone up. We used to be allowed a 10% weight loss from the factory curb weight, now we have to match it. Level 3 is allowed a 100 lb weight loss. This means we have to pork the car up to 2293 lbs. That's in "as raced" condition, so it would include tools and a spare. Honestly, that may not be far off what we eventually had.
There are some minutae as well, such as the method of adjusting displacement for things like overhead cams, four-valve heads and the like.
Hmm, it looks like my use of a 1999 cylinder head would bump me into Level 3. That's not good. It looks as if the big difference in engines in Level 2 and Level 3 are 10% displacement and the ability to change the number of camshafts and valves. If you have an old crossflow Ford and stuff a twin-cam Lotus head on top, this is for you. If you want to add a four-link suspension to your old Escort, same deal. But for those of us who already have four valve twin cam engines and good dual-wishbone suspensions, it's not dramatically different. Would it be worth dropping back to an earlier head to stay out of Level 3? Probably. Some dyno time would tell.
Or I could stick with my current plan of stuffing a V8 in there, running Open and scaring myself silly.
entry 706 - tags: 2010, rules | | |  | October 21, 2009 - I just finished writing a new book, and it's been a hard slog for the past few months.
I actually took the initial call from my editor proposing this book on the way home from Targa last year. More details later, but if you enjoy the content of this website I think you'll really dig the book.
Anyhow, now that I have time to play with cars, I'm going to do some testing with fuel pressure. Will a higher, fixed pressure as found in the NB (1999-05) Miata work better with my NB injectors? First step is to fit an adjustable regulator such as this one from AEM.
entry 707 - tags: fuel pressure | | |  | October 21, 2009 - If I'm going to be messing around with fuel pressure, I don't want the stock unit in the loop.
This means I need a different outlet from my fuel rail. Just for fun, I decided to cut a junk regulator open. They're not complicated! Taking the spring out means there's no pressure regulation, but I do wonder about the strength of that rubber diaphragm with 60+ psi of pressure and no spring to support it. So I won't be using this.
entry 708 - tags: fuel pressure | | |  | October 23, 2009 - Of course, the final solution to the fuel rail outlet was simple.
Tap the hole for a 1/4 NPT and screw in a hose barb. However, I was lucky. The 1999-00 fuel rail I'm using has a fairly beefy casting where the damper/regulator plugs in. It's a damper on the returnless 1999-00 fuel system, but for my 1994 system with a return line I had a regulator in place. That's a damper right beside the rail. Anyhow...
All the other rails such as the 2001-05 one above have a much thinner flange design. Would it be enough to tap to 1/4 NPT? Probably. But I'm more comfortable with all that extra metal around mine. With the 2001 version, I might have left the damper in place and drilled/tapped the end of the rail for 1/8 NPT. Not a lot of meat, but it's been done.
entry 709 - tags: fuel pressure | | |  | October 23, 2009 - While pulling the top half of the intake manifold to change the rail, I discovered the actuator for the VICS butterflies was disconnected.
The butterflies were stuck in the high rpm position. Interesting, I wonder how long this has been the case. There's supposed to be a c-clip retaining this. So I used safety wire instead and now the problem is solved.
entry 710 - tags: fuel pressure, VICS | | |  | October 24, 2009 - While I had the fuel rail off, I decided to swap injectors.
I had been using stock 1999-00 injectors (the red one) and I had a set of 2001-05 injectors (purple) on the shelf. The reds are 240cc and the purples are 265.
Why? Because I've come to realize that I simply may not have had enough injector in the car and that might have been causing the car to run lean at sea level. When I drop down to sea level from 5000', the engine makes 20% more power because of the thicker air. Could this be why the car was wanting to detonate at Laguna Seca, or why it started to misfire on the last day of the Targa? I don't know, but quite possibly. It should have been a fairly easy thing to do and Jeremy at FM mentioned it to me once a couple of years back. Between one thing and another, it just never got done.
I'll be more comfortable with the larger injectors. Also, I'll get more fuel from the higher pressure. Will these 270s be enough? Not if I start to get close to 200 hp, that's about where they peak. In that case, I have a set of 550cc injectors I can swap in. But they'd require new connectors for the injectors so I didn't bother to do that. I'm about to embark on a series of tests and I'd like to leave the wiring as unmolested as possible for the time being.
entry 711 - tags: fuel pressure, injectors | | |  | October 26, 2009 - With the fuel system all buttoned up, I was seeing odd numbers on the gauge built into the FPR.
I'd been a bit concerned about the fuel pump (of unknown history, I'm really not sure where it's from) dealing with sustained 60 psi fuel pressure, so I decided to swap it out for a Walbro I had sitting around the garage. It's pretty easy when your car has no interior! I also plumbed in a second fuel pressure gauge to confirm the readings.
Good thing, the cool little built-in one was pretty fictional most of the time. I set the pressure to a fixed 60 psi and went out for a run to let the ECU auto tune. It's definitely not feeling perky right now, probably far too rich. I'll put it on the dyno in the next couple of days and see what I can do with it. Since it's so simple to adjust the pressure now and I have some existing tuned maps, I can easily do back-to-back dyno runs with the 1994 fuel pressure and the 1999 fixed amount.
entry 712 - tags: fuel pressure | | | October 26, 2009 - I've been doing some testing on the suspension of the car.
As usual! This time, I'm running some very stiff 750 lb front springs with 450 lbs in the rear. Usually I'd run a higher rear spring rate with that much in the front, but it was a matter of what was on hand. The car works surprisingly well on the road, even though that front rate is exactly double what we ran in the race. It's going to be a lot of fun on the track this weekend for sure, with some very quick reflexes right now. In fact, the rear rate seems to be working pretty well. Well enough to make me wonder what I should run in the next Targa. I'd been leaning towards 450/375.
While under the rear of the car swapping in a larger sway bar to keep the handling balance with that "soft" rear spring setup, I saw fresh shock fluid on the right rear shock. That wasn't there when I swapped the springs a few days back. Interesting...
entry 713 - tags: suspension | | | October 28, 2009 - Time to see if the fuel pressure changes did anything!
Background: there's a big dip in the car's torque curve between 3500 and 4500 rpm. Massive, actually. It's about a 10% drop. The theory was presented to me that the B (1999-05) injectors are designed to run at a higher pressure, so they weren't atomizing properly. Thus my work of late to raise the pressure.
Unfortunately, it did nothing. Nothing at all. After a bit of tuning to deal with the different fuel curve that's a result of the fixed fuel pressure, the car didn't change a bit. I spent some time playing with timing and fuel, just to prove that naturally aspirated cars have a pretty big sweet spot. Adding an extra 3 degrees of ignition advance didn't do anything, so I took it out again.
Dyno chart
Okay, so that didn't do anything. While the car was on the dyno, I decided to mess with the intake cam timing because that's quick and easy. I advanced the cam by 5°. This should theoretically help the bottom end while hurting the top. And it did. Kinda. The bottom end got stronger and there was a bit of a taper above 6700 rpm. Pretty good tradeoff. The weird thing is that the dip was unaffected. All the gains were on each side of it. It's obvious that there's something that's just not working in that rpm range, but what is it?
Dyno chart
Next, I retarded the intake cam 5° from my original setting. More overlap, should be a bad idle, a weaker low end and more up top. These are fairly big changes, but I was trying to see trends. Oddly, the car purred at idle. It's always had a very grouchy idle, lumpy and a bit tricky to launch. Not any more. But the car really didn't like the cam settings, losing a huge amount of power down low and only gaining a little bit way up top.
Dyno chart
So, not a terribly successful day really. Although it was educational. The cams in the car are Stage 2 cams from Integral Camshafts, and they say that for some reason their 1.8 hydraulic lifter cams just don't work well. The 1.6 ones do, as do the 1.8 solid lifter cams. Just not these. So the next step is to play with a few different cams. It's the second set I've tried, but I have at least three other options to stick in there and see what happens. Once that's done, I'm going to play with a couple of intake manifold options that are available to me. What I'd really like is a VVT head, as I've seen a very similar engine to mine make big torque right where I have my dip. That engine is in the FM shop, not far from where the Targa car is parked. And the boss is going on vacation...
But still, the engine's getting stronger. Here's a comparison between what it looked like when it first hit the dyno and now. Since then, I've altered the intake pre-throttle, built the header and changed cams.
entry 714 - tags: dyno, fuel pressure, cams | | | October 29, 2009 - A quick engine comparison.
Before Elvis - a 2002 Miata at Flyin' Miata that should be fitted with velcro motor mounts - was fitted with a V8, it had a naturally aspirated motor that was broadly similar to mine. The car had a set of roller barrel throttle bodies and a Racing Beat header but more importantly, it had a VVT head. The dip is missing!
Dyno chart
entry 715 - tags: dyno | | | November 2, 2009 - Track day time!
The new 750/450 springs worked quite well, pretty much eliminating body movement but allowing the suspension to still soak up those berms in the chicane. The car was fairly quick as well, allowing me to match my best-ever time of 1:04.7 despite a cold day and slow times for most people. Janel also liked it, posting a personal best and getting down into the 1:10 range. She's not a big fan of the feel of cold race tires on the warmup lap. There was actually ice on the start/finish line when we arrived in the morning, I'm not exaggerating about the cold!
The shocks are dealing very well with the rates, even keeping the car comfortable on the street. It's lost that very smooth ride it had for the Targa, of course. Bumps are dealt with without upsetting the car, but it doesn't seem to repave the road the way it did. I'm still playing around with what the best spring setup for the race would be in the event that we get to go back. 450/375 and some good ride height? Probably. For track use, these heavy springs are obviously the way to go.
entry 716 - tags: suspension, testing | | |  | November 4, 2009 - Temptation.
Okay, I was really just doing some suspension work on the car and the plastic V8 mockup happened to be used for something else. But wouldn't these two work well together?
entry 717 - tags: V8 | | |  | November 4, 2009 - Time for some intake manifold testing.
Since the big torque dip wasn't affected at all by the cam change or the fuel pressure change, I'm thinking it's something with the intake manifold.
The 1999-00 intake manifold I'm using has VICS, which stands for something like Variable Intake Control System. It doesn't change the length of the intake runners as you might expect, but opens and closes a resonance chamber in the manifold that's placed about halfway down the runners. It's been proven to be fairly effective on the dyno, and the butterflies flip at around 5200 rpm.
The manifold is in two pieces. The lower contains the butterflies and the upper has the chamber - you can see it here with a nice tan color. The passage inside the chamber is for the EGR gases, which are routed from the back of the manifold to be injected just behind the throttle body.
entry 718 - tags: intake, engine | | |  | November 4, 2009 - Based on some things I've read, I've cut out the wall between the plenum and the resonance chamber.
With this setup, the plenum is effectively much larger - but more importantly I now have variable length intake runners. With the butterflies closed, the air will follow the same route as before. But when they open, a short intake path will become available which should benefit high-rpm operation. I also removed the EGR ducting because I don't run an EGR system, and this cleans up the flow near the throttle body. While cutting out the EGR ducting, I did manage to break through into one of the bolt holes, but that was patched up with some good two-part epoxy (ie, not JB Weld). I also modified the gasket that sits between the two halves to match my modified manifold.
There are nice bellmouths on the long runners and ideally I should shape some on the new short runners, but not until I've done a preliminary test to see if the modifications have any effect. It's quick and easy to change the upper half of the manifold. If the testing looks good, I'll go a bit further with cleaning everything up inside both the top and the bottom halves.
Gary at Track Dog Racing has tried removing the bellmouths for the long runners as well as bellmouthing the short runners. He reports power gains on cars with forced induction, but not much without boost. It's worth a shot though.
entry 719 - tags: intake, engine | | |  | November 16, 2009 - I'm proud of this one.
Grassroots Motorsports (GRM) magazine just celebrated their 25th anniversary, and as part of their big issue they named "Our 25 favorite cars from the last quarter century". It should be no surprise to GRM readers that the Miata topped the list. They also highlighted 10 milestone Miatas, "The most important examples of a very important car". And guess what one of them was?
Yup, the Targa Miata is in the company of SCCA National runoff winners, the very first Spec Miata and a winner of the 25 Hours of Thunderhill. One of the 10 chosen examples of GRM's most important car of the last 25 years. August company, and we're flattered to be included. As an added bonus, we're on the front of the GRM website.
If you're interested, GRM has released the issue in digital form for free. It's not just the print copy in PDF, it's got extra content such as video. In fact, you can watch us run the Clarenville stage as part of the Targa Miata mention. It's a beefy download but has lots of good reading and watching inside.
Digital GRM
entry 720 - tags: grassroots, magazine | | |  | November 17, 2009 - Ta daaaah!
Okay, it doesn't look like anything. But that's the hollowed out intake manifold. I'll take the car to work tomorrow and hopefully get the chance to put it on the dyno and see what difference it makes, if any.
I've got two other options sitting on the workbench, both a bit more radical. This is going to be interesting.
entry 721 - tags: intake manifold, engine | | | November 30, 2009 - No dyno charts yet, but the new hollow intake did nothing.
Nothing at all. This matches up with what a couple of other good engine builders have seen. There are some indications this modification is beneficial for boosted cars, but not naturally aspirated.
On to the next step!
entry 722 - tags: intake | | | January 11, 2010 - There hasn't been an update in some time - because I haven't worked on the car in some time.
The combination of a very, very cold December, a bunch of snow and other projects such as Janel's MG have kept me from working on the Targa car. I have a set of rebuilt shocks ready to install and some plans to try something different on the intake.
We'll be at the Miatas at Mazda Raceway event again this year. Janel and I will both be driving, and I'll be giving rides. We're both looking forward to it.
As for Targa 2010, we're considering it. It depends on being able to find some sponsors, and we're working on it.
entry 723 | | | January 29, 2010 - There's a huge change in the factors for 2010.
I've discussed this with the event organizers and it appears it's become public now so I can talk about it. You might remember the discussion of last year's factors. Basically, a base time is set for Class 9 Modified Large. This time is multiplied by the factor for other classes to provide the handicapping. The point is to try to make it an even race so the best team can win, regardless of car.
Naturally, it's the subject of some controversy. No Modern (roughly, 25 years old or less) car has ever won overall although it's been a lot closer than you might think a few times. Some classes seem to be more strongly penalized than others. And of course, there was the very public complaining by the Stillen team, who did not win the event - due to the quality of the navigation in my opinion. The other Targas don't try to handicap the Modern cars, and the Newfoundland organizers have been paying attention.
The end result? A few more classes in Classic, as mentioned earlier, to try to spread the field out a bit. And more fundamentally, the abolition of factors for the Modern division. Awards will still be given for the winner of each class, but given the number of classes this doesn't have a lot of meaning. There's still a 135 kmh maximum average and a 200 kmh maximum speed, so the Modern winner will be the person who can come closest to that average on every stage. The Classic division will be given their own first place award, so the race hasn't changed for the older cars at all.
The result is that Modern classes really don't matter. It's going to come down to the fastest Open Class car, and the rule book is pretty wide open. Worrying about things such as "will my 1999 head put me into Class 8, level 3 and is it worth 10 hp?" is irrelevant. Very few of the older cars are going to be competitive, it'll come down to a race between rally refugees like Subarus, Evos and the GTR with 600 hp and all wheel drive. Should be a dramatic race.
This is going to have an effect on a pretty large number of competitors. I'd say between 1/3 and 1/2 of the teams are suddenly going to be like us, completely out of the hunt because they're less than 25 years old and not equipped with the firepower of the latest supercars.
If I wanted the Targa car to be even close to competitive for a win, I'd have to do something dramatic such as install a V8. Had these rules been in place when we ran, it would have been cheaper and easier to simply stick an FM II turbo system on a stock engine instead of building up what I have. But I ended up with a pretty fun car, so no regrets there. The turbo engine wouldn't have been as operatic to drive as this one is.
It's a big change. Will it be enough to bring Stillen back? That team would have won last year under the 2010 rule set, as they expected to. Word is that Sprongl is preparing his Group B Audi to run as a 1981 classic with Level 3 preparation. Yowza.
There have been a few other tweaks. Cars with 14" or smaller stock wheels (we could do this with a different brake setup) are allowed to run R compound tires if they take a time penalty of 12 seconds/day. Race octane fuel is also allowed for 2010 only with a 10 second/day penalty. Nothing too exciting there.
So, if I was prepping the Miata for a competitive run for the win in 2010, I'd drop in one of the cammed LS3 motors we're using at Flyin' Miata. 480 horsepower and a total weight of around 2300 lbs would give it a decent turn of speed. It would be a fun (and terrifying) car to drive, but would require a fair investment. With the right driver/navigator combo, I think it would work. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen.
entry 724 - tags: rules, 2010 | | |
|
THE DIARY