I respect what you are doing and your goal I think is to make a faster car, but with all the work you are doing and sacrifices you are making it would be easier to just legitimately upgrade the engine HP some how. Just adding a turbo would give you what you want without all the work. Seriously, I know you are against the added weight but, seriously again, you would have your cake and be able to eat it also.
I did actual testing on air filters, I have real numbers, my numbers match those from Car and Driver and other real car writers. K&N filters do absolutely nothing at all. there is a ZERO pressure difference between the inside and outside of a paper filter. in fact a very dirty one showed only a 0.1psi drop.. PSI drop = loss in air flow.
I disagree they do nothing. They allow the vehicle to shed a few pounds and can still function when they get wet.
We agree the filtration/performance is not the issue here. I will agree with you even further and say that any street car does not NEED that level of performance to get from point A to point B. You may have missed the point of my post. The stock system has several ducts, brackets, clamps, water separator and parts that all add up to a lot more weight than an aftermarket setup. I am curious what that total weight is including a dirty element. Not to mention if you get a K&N filter wet, they still work. How long will a paper element last when it is getting rained on? The purpose of this thread is weight loss for performance gains. I have a short section of sheet metal duct about 4-6 inches long, connecting the throttle body to a cleanable cone filter mounted directly below the left side grille. I race in the rain, yes the filter gets wet and no I have never felt a performance difference because we can't go as fast in the rain anyway. I don't have to deal with snow where I live. How well do paper filters work when they are soaking wet?
As far as not doing anything, they also take up less space under the hood which means I can replace my slave cylinder, check shift linkages, check for loose bolts and generally have a lot more working space around that side of the engine. Some people have them because they think they look cool. Since you brought it up, I have had the same cleanable element for 5 years now. I am not an environmental extremist, (my car gets about 6-8 mpg on track) but not throwing one away every few months, times millions of vehicles, would make a pretty big dent in landfills, and corporate profits. I see no reason to continue to pay for paper filters when i can use that same money for other things.
they are soaked with oil to stop dirt from entering the engine; not that they filter air at all, here's a neat experiment hold one up to a light see all the holes.
people who run those filters are causing their engine more wear(i can bring in pics from another forum if you want); lets just say the intake tube from the filter back was caked with dust
they are soaked with oil to stop dirt from entering the engine; not that they filter air at all, here's a neat experiment hold one up to a light see all the holes.
people who run those filters are causing their engine more wear(i can bring in pics from another forum if you want); lets just say the intake tube from the filter back was caked with dust
I don't disagree. In addition, some people don't oil them and I have also seen people rig up different adapters that leak more air past the filter than they think.
I shift my built 2.8 around 7k rpm in relatively clean environments, and my oil is frequently changed. The dust particles that get past the filter are the least of my worries.
Everything is a compromise. I have dropped the cradle out of my car in 38 minutes, because ALL the excess stuff is gone. Another advantage of using it.
Again, the topic is weight loss, not practicality, or maximizing engine life.
I respect what you are doing and your goal I think is to make a faster car, but with all the work you are doing and sacrifices you are making it would be easier to just legitimately upgrade the engine HP some how. Just adding a turbo would give you what you want without all the work. Seriously, I know you are against the added weight but, seriously again, you would have your cake and be able to eat it also.
He has already stated that he is on a tight budget. Although shedding weight is a strenuous PITA way to gain performance, it is also the cheapest (removing parts doesn't cost money) way
Due to having to respond to so many OFF TOPIC inquiries, (many of which were spiteful and just plain mean) additional pictures , plus the REAR weight loss list, COULD'NT be posted.
In an attempt to MOVE ON and possibly show more interesting work that was done on the car, ( which ISNT DONE yet.) I admit to truncating my responses somewhat, because I was IMPATIENT and wanted to start posting my pix relatively IN ORDER.
Curiosity about a project is fine, but when I have to DEFEND myself at EVERY turn, you can hopefully understand it gets very aggravating, very fast. (I have SURPRISES on the back burner, and I did'nt want to say TOO MUCH.)
Even if my comments were "common knowlege", were'nt in enough detail, were'nt technical enough, seemed half-baked, or did'nt make sense......... ( I'm musing sometimes) regardless, they were ( to me) DECENT answers to questions that were INCREASINGLY OFF TOPIC.
I'm NOT a mechanic, an engineer, or well off, and I admit my communication skills are whack at times.......BUT I have PASSION for the fiero and wish to contribute my own version of it WITHOUT any unnecessary animosity.
P.S. x three:
The car ISNT DONE YET, alot of issues are still under evaluation. (what grade of aluminum, what shape, is this thick enough, will this fit, will this hold, this part is too heavy, but necessary, should I add an additional bracket, this over here COULD be drilled, how much money is actually needed, if I use lexan, how about......ETC., ETC.
The aero dynamics questions/ and horsepower tips were just a diversion, AND a "peace offering" (which obviously DID'NT work), so I could MOVE ON and eventually start posting ON TOPIC nomenclature again.
I apologize if this mislead people into thinking I did'nt care about what I was doing, or intend to do in the future.
Again, the car ISNT DONE, I'm just showing WHAT was done SO FAR.
I'm NOT a mechanic, an engineer, or well off, and I admit my communication skills are whack at times.......BUT I have PASSION for the fiero and wish to contribute my own version of it WITHOUT any unnecessary animosity.
Relax.
We have all been there in one form or another. I have broken my share of stuff trying to figure out what works, just like most on here.
We would be wrong if we did not try to pass on some of our mistakes and triumphs so you can learn faster and maybe make fewer mistakes.
Some of us pass that information on more eloquently than others.
I spent a few hours last night looking over OFF TOPIC info to have a proper defense, as well as a point blank OFFENSE to your various comments. ( I got some pretty good, thermal nuke rebuttal info too.)
But, this horde of tangents is NOT PRODUCTIVE. So, I'm throwing away the TWO pages of notes acquired. ( Maybe. Knowledge IS power.)
Also, about the OFF TOPIC matter of adding a turbo on a STOCK 2.8 ....... YES, it CAN and has been done without failure. Buttttt, if you dont get your fuel mapping (.bin file), injectors enlarged,2 bar map sensor, 80's buick knock sensor or stock ecm reprogrammed to accept the 2 bar map, OR use the T bird T3 super 60 trim......PLUS incorparate a turbo timer as cheap insurance, you WILL break the engine. ( I might have left some things out, but I'm NOT really interested in a turbo. YET.)
So, PLEASE dont ask me about this anymore.
On the mea culpa about the early year fieros having a drag coefficent of .41 (or CX to 0.417), I was in a RUSH to finish replying to an OFF TOPIC inquiry. The info I got from the brooklands "road test books" series titled " PONTIAC FIERO 1984-1988", page 8, lower left under the diagram.
The CX to 0.417 was the number given when the 84's HEADLIGHTS were UP.
I'm NOT picking on the early year fieros. I was trying to prove a point that aerodynamics are compromised on a STOCK fiero and not just on a modified car like mine. (Again, I'm not being passive agressive or anything, but lift figures for the same car were at 120 lb at 100 mph.)
The 86 gt probably has some STOCK lift numbers too, but I dont wanna kept dwelling on this matter anymore anyway.
Baldlobo, even though we got off on the wrong foot, I appreciate your input.
Best way to sum it up, "Steel sharpens steel".
With this said, I'm interested in posting pix again.
[This message has been edited by sunofjustice (edited 12-10-2010).]
Like I mentioned before, money is TIGHT. (trying to pay down my debts, credit rating IS going up though)
The quality of the vinyl is dubious, fit and finish is quasi askewed, but since this is my FIRST attempt at weight reduction WITH some sort of style incorparated, this will have to do for now. (Plus, it didnt help that I had to deal with TWO civial court cases at the same time. Filling out, and making my own interrogetories.)
Heres the aux temp. gauge pod
I WAS driving around without anything there, and no computer cover. The gaping hole was getting on my nerves alittle, and people at work kept nagging, "so....... when are you gonna finish the interior?"
An IPOD speaker system (about 9 -10 oz. versus 12 pounds of STOCK radio whatnot), will eventually be used thats transportable.
When not in use, the ipod stereo system (ISS) can be hidden, OR taken out when needed. A hidden door in the NEW aluminum dash will be incorparated.
Here are the gas tank tunnel skirts installed, they re mainly there to hide wire from the battery. (aesthetics help keep the car from looking abandoned here in Michigan, cops see NO INTERIOR..... you can pretty much anticipate trouble.)
( When its WARM, the wrinkles smooth out.)
Some pieces of trim are still in there, (door surround, plastic that surrounds the rear speakers, the dash, map light surround) they' re NOT staying.
The headliner , sun roof metal surround and sun visors are history.
not to hijack your thread again but did you connect the ab aldl pins while you were trying to time the engine? if you did your damper is loose(it's a design flaw)
I would like to switch over to the autometer ULTRA-LITE series gauges , since they are SUPPOSEDLY lightweight like their namesake implys.
While surfing the net, I found these.......
Sexy, sexy.
I plan to install: water, oil, and volt gauges, NOT these examples in particular.)
I still have to find out IF there is any real weight reduction savings, but I'm not sweat'n it. These were REALLY cheap, look much better than the ones summit had for sale, and I could really use them to clean up things gauge wise.
Just FYI, a Group 51 car battery weighs about 5-6 lb less than the stock Fiero battery. The group 51 battery is top-post, which I prefer for more positive terminal connection. You may want to check for engine bay vent clearance, though. You should be able to find one at your local auto parts store.
Also, the rear clip has lots of extraneous fiberglass. You could easily trim 4-5 lb of "useless fat" from the rear clip, without affecting the appearance or structural strength (I actually trimmed 12 lb out of it, but that involved deleting the supporting structure for the stock tail lights).
And I'm sure you could give the decklid the same treatment you gave to the hood. And those black plastic triangular trim pieces above the engine bay vents... you can ditch those. Then you can trim out the supporting structure for them that's molded into the rear clip. If you decide to delete the engine bay vents (even the stock ones), you can get rid of the plastic / metal parts that support them. More pounds gone.
I actually enjoy reading your thread, even though I don't plan to get so "hard-core" with the weight reduction. Don't mind the peanut gallery. The more you respond to them, the more fervently they will come back at you.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 12-11-2010).]
The current after market temp. gauge does an exemplary job, but it IS portly! (It almost weighs as much as the STOCK dual gauges)
The triple gauge set, with an aluminum cage, would certainly make gauge reading more efficient as well as lightweight.
Here are the other aftermarket gauges
The boost gauge was back when I seriously contemplated supercharging. An air/ fuel gauge will be substituted when the dual throttle body project is completed.
[This message has been edited by sunofjustice (edited 12-11-2010).]
Blacktree, funny that you mentioned the REAR deck weight reduction........................
( WARNING: kids, dont try this at home)
I removed material from behind the tail lights too, I'll have to post it tomorrow though. Almost time to go to work. (I owe, I owe, so off to work I go"...)
sometimes you have to gain alittle extra weight to be faster. adding an extra 20 or so lbs in turbo gear and such (no idea how much a turbo weights, im just guessing) to gain an extra 20 - 30+ hp will be alot easyer then trying to remove 200 to 300 lbs off the car. you could do an engine swap to a smaller higher output engine, or bigger engine :P from what i been reading. the 4.9V8 engine weighs about the same as a 2.8. with 60 more hp and about 100 more tq.
with a 2300 curb weight with good powerful engine. you would be one quick little sucker!
i would do a what you would be doing but im starting to get alittle older. and im starting to lean towards more a quieter ride :P
by the way. i kinda skipped abit of your thread cuz alot of it seemed to be alot of bashing towards you with how you are doing things. how much weight did you loose by cutting up the rear deck? just had an idea. hood pins on your deck lid. totaly cut it up for even more weight savings. and just use hood pins on your deck lid to keep it in put. if you had to pop the deck lid to work on it. it would be fairly light to take off. and lean it up agaist the car.
i thought about removing the carpet afew years ago and spraying the botton of the floor with expandable foam on the edges and smooth it out once it got hard. and then buying some thin fabric like a bed sheet or something along thos lines and spray clue all over the floor and just laying out. it would cover the uglyness of the floor while being lightweight
no offense, but I still wanna get a 15 pound DRY CELL battery. (My current battery weighs roughly 38 pounds, the dry-cell would shave off 23 pounds!)
Blacktree, I certainly appreciate the sail panel weight reduction mod. The rear vent mounts are already scuttled. Pix of the area behind the tail lights will be posted soon. I'll remove the over roof scoops AFTER new aluminum vents are made. Hopefully, IF the weather is cooperative, I'll have some CLEAN, NICE LOOKING vents done by this Sunday. (Or, at least ONE of them.)
Joshh44, Thank you for posting. I have'nt totally dismissed the turbo idea, the 3.4, OR the northstar. All of these ideas arent bad. But, The turbo is RISKY, and the other two require MORE money, which I DONT HAVE right now. (Plus, I would have to PAY someone to install the engine, as well as pay for the engine itself.)
I realize the dual throttlebody idea wont make as much power as a turbo, or a BIGGER engine. But, if everything goes well, I SHOULD get at least 15-20 hp. (After getting a chip burned for the application of course.)
I wanted to share some info on lightweight, race oriented batteries. I'm certain someone else has already done so, but thought this would be interesting. https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@www.voltphreaks.com/ssl/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=1_5&products_id=81
Since the link did'nt work, and the pics are'nt allowed here due to size, I'll just give some quick names and specs of the race oriented batteries.
VOLTPHREAKS: VPH 750 (5.5 lbs)
700/390 CA/CCA
Ideal for 4, 6, and 8 cyl.
Lithium Iron new battery chemistry found in hybrids and electrical vehicles. COMPLETE battery system designed to AUTO SHUT OFF to guarantee FULL start, alarm, and settings.
Price.......(drum roll please)........
$ 1299.00
It sounds REALLY wonderbah untill the bill comes. (Dine and dash!)
Good gravy, for THAT much it should drive the car for you too. Yikes.
BRAILE: B129 (9.5 lbs)
813 "pulse amps"(?)
Price....... $155.00
(Sounds ALOT better than the first one.)
BRAILE: B106 (6.6 lbs)
527 "pulse amps"
Price........ $148.00
(I may have to look at these a bit more. Hmmm.)
The HAWKER PC680 WAS my first choice,
but I've been reading ALOT of negative COLD WEATHER commentary on this one today. (The PC925 might be better for winter, even though it weighs roughly 26 lbs.)
Great, more homework to do.....
[This message has been edited by sunofjustice (edited 12-27-2010).]
Anywho, heres the pix of the rear as promised, I had to go back out into our glorious Michigan weather to get 'em.
The area above the brake lights was supposed to be resealed with .16 gauge aluminum.
But after days of cutting, with drill battery packs running out (no garage), and one battery died on me.... I got a little burnt out.
Eventually, the aluminum patch panels will be shaped into shallow, rectangular boxes that will be able to TEMPORARILY hold tools and such when working on the engine.
The rear vent mounts are already out. Both brackets combined weighed 1lb/ 9.5 oz. (Roughly 2 pounds.) Small aluminum brackets will be swapped in to replace them.
A tally for all the weight removed from the rear decklid, engine, and rear bumper will be posted next.
Also, the rear clip has lots of extraneous fiberglass. You could easily trim 4-5 lb of "useless fat" from the rear clip, without affecting the appearance or structural strength (I actually trimmed 12 lb out of it, but that involved deleting the supporting structure for the stock tail lights).
This got my attention.
Do the notch back clips have that much excess on them as well? I have been debating on removing mine just to see if there was any worthwhile gain. Now that I see this, it looks like that will be my next project. Do you have any photos of what you removed. Any cracking or reassembly issues, or did you just remove whatever you saw without removing the clip.
Anyone have a photo of the bottom side of a notch back clip so I can plan ahead?
My Fiero is a notchie. So yeah, there's weight to be shed there. It depends on how radical you want to get with the body mods. I did some pretty radical stuff, but shed about 20-25 lb off the rear end in the process.
A notchback conversion would definitely be a good way for u to save weight lol
If one is only concerned with losing weight, and not so much with function, the whole body could just be removed. Should get you a nice couple hundred pounds lost easily.
I am NOT only concerned with weight. Obviously, I still want a semblance of STYLE, anyone can just STRIP a car down. I'm trying to keep the aesthetics of a 86 GT by losing weight, and INCREASE acceleration/braking as a byproduct.
No offense to the notchbach crowd, my car IS currently LIGHTER than a notchie.
EGR valve heat wrap sheath (Factory) (Some bozo mechanic replaced my aftermarket UPGRADE.) 2 oz.
PCV valve cover to airfilter tube ?
PCV intake to valve cover tube (Plastic) 1 oz.
Power brake vacuum hose (Rubber) 4 oz.
Various unused vacuum line (Rubber) ?
Throttle body to thermostat "heater tubes" (Metal) ?
Map sensor bracket 1 oz.
Coil / engine hoist bracket (Replaced w aluminum +added ground) 13.4 oz.
Dipstick / engine hoist bracket (Replaced with a small aluminum bracket) 11.5 oz.
Dogbone SECONDARY bracket (Bolts behind the primary bracket, also used to support A/C bracket) 1 lb 9.5 oz
Catalytic converter (Stock) ?
Exhaust hanger springs (Stock) ?
Starter support bracket (Stock) ?
Muffler (Stock, replaced with thrush glass pack) ?
................................................................................................ Here's another chestnut....
On the cradle, there are little "tabs" or (hooks) that the factory used to help hold the exhaust in place. With a custom exhaust, these tabs really arent needed anymore.
Every once can add up. LOSE what you dont use or want, so you can keep what you DO need or want.
Quid pro quo, sort of.
Brian
[This message has been edited by sunofjustice (edited 12-13-2010).]
2 oz.
