2.8l v6 turbo charged? (Page 6/6)
Will JAN 18, 08:39 PM

quote
Originally posted by BillS:

A lot of people here will tell you not to waste your time on an engine with all the inherent breathing limitations of the cast iron headed V6, but I had a great time with it. Today I would have started with a 3.4 engine but they weren't available used yet when I did it.



Ehh... It's more a matter of knowing what you're signing up for. The 3400's gain MORE horsepower than PSI with a well-intercooled turbo setup... they're almost magical.

Also, technology marches on. When I had the Storm Trooper's engine out to remove the seized waterpump, I checked on 3.4's and 3400's. Swapping in a 3.4 was almost MORE expensive than swapping in a 3400, despite the extra work with the 3400. Iron head 3.4's were always scarcer than 3400's and since they're older are that much scarcer now. Add in the fact that most modern tuners can't do anything with 7730's but probably can with the 3400 ECM, and the iron head engines start to look less and less "simple" and "cheap" and more "antique".

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 01-19-2021).]

Honest Don JAN 25, 09:24 PM

quote
Originally posted by pmbrunelle:

Do you use that as an axis limit switch for machine tools?

Thinking about it some more, bounce is a moot point for a clutch switch.

In the real world, a driver could potentially hold the clutch pedal at the switchpoint transition indefinitely (perhaps oscillating about the transition), so the code must be written to work correctly with that input.

In that case, I might as well use a reed switch, even if it does bounce, considering that it can be a much simpler install (one wire grounding to chassis). No power needed.

With further reflection, I remembered that I used a reed switch for my backup lamps:
http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/142564.html

If I could use the same reed switch as for my backup lamps, that would be nice. I like parts standardization, where appropriate.



They get used all over. Good reliability and repeatability.


I'm with you on parts standardization. The less spares that need to be on the shelf, the better.

thesameguy JAN 26, 02:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by Will:
To add a serious note... impact beam height is actually set by the NHTSA... so yes, a 2020 Malibu would his the impact beam, because it's impact beam is at the same height.



I don't think that's correct. The law that "created" side impact beams for the Fiero would be Standard 214 (1981?), which is a performance test. The performance test means that automakers can achieve the result ("side impact protection") in whatever manner they choose and that the specifics of the solution are not defined. The problem with FMVSS 214, we later found out, is that the performance test includes an adjustable loading device whose position is dictated by the car it's being used against. That means a smaller, lower car would have the load applied in a different place than a larger, taller car. This wasn't great in the '80s, but became a major problem in the '90s when sales of trucks & SUVs spiked and vehicle height mismatches became more common. The new performance metrics should fix that.

Here is the testing method for Standard 214:


quote
Location of Load Device - Passenger Cars - Position the loading device at least
0.50 inch above the bottom edge of the door window opening but not of a length
that will cause contact with any structure above the bottom edge of the door
window opening during the test.



You can see the flaw when there are vehicle height mismatches - the device is aimed directly at the door. A Fiero's door is *much* lower than a 2020 Malibu's.

And, of course, we're really not concerned with two doors running into each other. We're worried about a front bumper hitting a door. Bumper heights can legally range from 16 to 20 inches, and bumper height has nothing to do with passing FMVSS 214. It's absolutely possible for a vehicle to pass 214 and still get murdered by a 20" high bumper.

[This message has been edited by thesameguy (edited 01-26-2021).]

Will JAN 27, 08:36 AM
After looking up a little more on that, I found that the NHTSA does not regulate bumper height for SUVs to be in line with bumper height of passenger cars, which seems insane considering their mission.

Anyway, passenger car bumper height is between 16 and 20 inches... I haven't measured this relative to the Fiero door impact beams, but it's in the right ballpark.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 01-27-2021).]

thesameguy JAN 27, 12:30 PM
Yeah, there's a whole other spec for "trucks" and even that null space between heavy duty OTR trucks that require Mansfield bars and other commercial trucks. The whole thing is a mess! When all this stuff was concocted it was just assumed that regular people drove regular cars and that everything would work out. All of a sudden people started commuting in Suburbans and lifted trucks became a hobby and everything went off the rails.

The new side impact standards that are being drafted will require the static load to be applied at a specific height, so car side impact standards will be more compatible with varying bumper heights. It will still be a performance test, but you can see how discussions (which began like 15 years ago) around these standards are already affecting cars - cars themselves are taller, belt lines are higher, and windows are smaller. That's how you get a 2020 Malibu's passengers to survive a t-bone with a 2020 Suburban. The problem is that improving car vs. truck crashes means new car vs. old car turns into a pile of suck.

Check this:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqwvoBt9ZBp2gfF3L0KkVdrTvq6QSQ

This is the view from my 2002 Jaguar XJR behind a 2008 XJ8-VDP. Two generations of the same car. My hood line is below her bumper line! My Jag gets MURDERED if she t-bones me. But she does quite well against an SUV.
Will JAN 27, 09:33 PM
Asks for a Microsoft password
thesameguy JAN 28, 02:53 PM
It shouldn't, but whatever.

[This message has been edited by thesameguy (edited 01-28-2021).]