| MIATA BUILD |
|
|
 | |  | September 14, 2009 - Day 1 is over, and 13 cars zeroed the day.
That's about the same as last year. Jim Kenzie in his new MINI wasn't amongst them, he may be having a little trouble sorting out the new car. Otherwise, there weren't a lot of big surprises. The Mk 1 Escort finished the day clean, I was happy to see.
This 911 was quick on the Prologue. Times aren't being posted for the stages during the day - only the penalties - so it's impossible to say how he's doing relative to the other cars. Given his overall speed and the fact that he's in class 3, he could be quite competitive. I'll be watching.
Steve Millen in the big GTR has discovered the car was too low and too soft for the battered Newfoundland tarmac. It's been lifted and stiffened (just like I plan to do to the Miata when I go back!) and later photos of the car may look dramatically different than the pre-event ones did. My big concern about that car was that it was set up wrong, and now I think it has a real chance. Will a modern car finally win Targa?
Photo, like all others in this year's updates, by Gordon Sleigh.
entry 700 - tags: 2009 | | |  | September 15, 2009 - Day 2 results are in!
Day 2 was possibly my favorite of the race, and the day I think I performed at my best. Not sure why, that's just the impression I have when I think back. And it had some of my favorite stages in it.
Leading Tickles was cancelled due to "communication problems". What a shame, that stage sticks in my mind strongly. Not the whole thing - it was about 15 km of blur, really - but the commitment I gave on it. That stage is the one I think of when I think of what it was like to run the Targa.
Roger Tillotsen and Steve Robertson were a couple of very cool guys from the UK who were a lot of fun to hang out with while waiting to start a stage, and they rolled their Impreza WRX Sti on Pleasantview. The guys aren't badly injured, but the car is pretty rough according to the official press release. According to the listings, they DNF'd Bobby's Cove. That's the same stage as Pleasantview in the opposite direction, so it's an easy mistake to make.
Glen Clarke has managed to stay penalty-free in his 911, so he's leading the race. Actually, there were a lot of people who were clean until Gander.
In second is Jed's Acadian with 1 second of penalties. Third is that green 911 I fingered earlier with 3 seconds. Then the GTR (6 seconds), the 2002 that won last year tied with a Camaro (8 seconds). The monster Audi, the Mk1 Escort, a 911 GT3 and a 911SC driven by an experienced competitor are all tied for 7th with 14 seconds. Pretty close race!
It looks like Jim Kenzie in the MINI is having a bit of trouble. Based on comments in his blog, he's having trouble finding grip due to a stiff setup. Janel and I both with him and Brian well, they were such a help to us.
Massive Audi tire smoke from the Stillen website.
entry 701 - tags: 2009 | | |  | September 17, 2009 - I love this picture.
Paul's on the edge - he's actually countersteering! Oh wow. I have to go back.
I've been posting my analysis of the 2009 race over on the Grassroots Motorsports forum. It's a good race this year, with very few penalties at the front end. Of course, no penalties means no changing of positions, as the only way to move up in the standings in the Targa is for the guy in front of you to make a mistake. The old 911 is still sitting in 2nd with the 2002 right behind, and Glen Clarke is still leading with only 4 seconds of penalties overall. I'm kind of hoping tomorrow will bring a bunch of penalties so that there's some better racing. Having 3-5 teams zero the entire day is impressive, but not that much fun.
I'm thinking the level of competition has stepped way up this year. The number of penalties is far down for everybody. Are the base times different, or has everyone just improved that much over the past year? Hard to say. We'd actually be in about the same position if we were running this year, assuming we had the same penalties after day 4.
entry 702 - tags: 2009 | | | September 17, 2009 - Want to know how to prepare a car to win the Monte Carlo?
Let Paddy Hopkirk tell you. The bit about waterproofing your distributor made me laugh - I discovered that my Mini loses ignition right about the same time the windshield wipers get overwhelmed. That's actually a pretty good safety feature.
The article may be dated, but there's good information regardless. I'm not sure I'll be bringing a pillow along on the next Targa, but we actually did have one for Janel!
entry 703 - tags: preparation | | | September 28, 2009 - The Targa's been over for a week now.
The last day was stupendously wet by all accounts, and the leaderboard got all shaken up. At the end, Roy Hopkins in his BMW 2002 took the win for the third year in a row. The green 911 was right behind in second. The much-anticipated Nissan GTR finished in 6th, right behind Paul's beautiful Mk1 Escort. Glen Clarke's car was almost undriveable in the wet and he made the wise decision to back off. Stories abound of cars spinning on the transit sections on the Trans-Canada.
Naturally, there's a lot of fuss about handicapping. The Stillen-prepped GTR was supposed to win. Fast car, experienced driver. But not a driver with Targa Newfoundland experience, and the navigator was a rally novice. The Stillen folks are upset. Road and Track is upset. It appears that a number of the competitors - including Jim Kenzie, whose opinion carries a lot of weight with me - are upset. After all, no Modern car has ever won the race outright and the big orange Nissan was supposed to.
I wonder. I'm looking at last year's results where two of the top five cars were brand new models. Roy Hopkins reminded me that he came in second with a "Modern" car a few years back, only one second behind Bill Arnold.
I don't see anyone returning year after year to try to win with a Modern car. Roy built that 2002 specifically to win Targa, and he has a huge amount of experience in the event. The inexperience of the Stillen team did cost them some time early in the week, and in order to win you have to be perfect for the entire race.
Still, the complaining will be high-profile. I expect the article in R&T about the race will mention it, and Jim's already published something in the Toronto Star (or at least on their website, I don't see the paper itself). Everyone following the Stillen effort - a bunch of folks introduced to the Targa for the first time - will have heard it. Stillen is proclaiming that they are not interested in returning because of the unfairness.
It should be acknowledged that a number of teams are bringing cars that are built to the extent of the rules, as should be expected. However, these cars show the results of decades of development. Paul's 1968 Escort is likely not a car that could have been built in 1968 but the rule set assumes it is.
And of course the fact that the complaining is coming from a high-profile team means that the Targa organizers are more likely to listen. The rule set is usually fixed for 4 years, and 2010 marks the implementation of a new one. I doubt we'll see the end of handicapping, but we may see some massaged time factors and the allowable modifications for Modified might be tightened up. I think the latter might actually be the way to go, forcing some of the highly modified Classic cars into Open. Thankfully, I'm not the person who has to deal with this!
entry 704 - tags: 2009, rules | | | 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 | | |
|
THE DIARY