2seater

It does sound like a crank sensor problem. If it was running rough, it may have been in the limp home mode, with reduced timing, but the manual warns that it will not restart. In other words it will continue to run if the sensor fails but if the reference signal is gone on start up, it has no reference to start the ignition process. Did the Check Engine light come on at any time?

Go ahead and borrow away <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />. The larger line will actually allow you to watch the oil pump pulsate a little, usually at hot idle, and it will respond immediately. I understand about the about the Cyberdyne gauges. I have a friend that has them and has replaced the oil pressure sender three times, plus if he turns the headlights on, the water temp. and oil pressure will sometimes change their reading by a slight amount. Not a big deal, and it may be cured by wiring the power into a different circuit, but I never liked the idea of the gauge being dependant on two different "things" to get a reading.

Personally I prefer the mechanical gauge as they aren't voltage dependant and I never use the plastic little line that comes with the gauge, I use a 1/4" pushlock style low pressure hydraulic hose, but the gauge must have 1/8" pipe style inlet rather than some proprietary fitting for the gauge tubing. It responds much more quickly than the small line, and the flex problem can be overcome if the line is routed in from the side where it will rotate rather than bend, kind of like wire routing into a door. The biggest problem is the mechanical temperature gauge does use a small sealed copper line and there is no good way to avoid flexing that line, and it will fail eventually, although it won't hurt the engine. Just my 0.02 <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yes they are. As a matter of fact, some people have reported getting the air struts when they purchased struts for the Reatta, yet they were never an option? By the way, the Monroe struts I bought did not come with the special air fittings and lines to connect them. I had to order them separately and were not expensive.

I used the Riviera air struts on the rear. I do have an onboard compressor from a Cadillac but I never hooked it up. I have two standard tire type valves, auto stores call them "tank valves", one is inside the trunk and one is inside the center console on a flex line with a gauge attached. I use one of those little portable air compressors to adjust the ride height when loaded. Places like JC Whitney et al. have small onboard compressors too, with in car control panels.

Generally I agree with Padgetts assessment the Reatta is a touring car rather than a dragster, and it does excell at that, plus it looks pretty good even today. It's realy too heavy to make a good drag car. I have several reasons for my interest in adding some performance. First, I don't have room to store a dedicated "fun" car, so even though the Reatta is my daily driver during the summer, I decided to sorta combine a "project" vehicle with daily duty. That said, there a lot of two lane roads in my part of the country and the passing power of the Reatta could be improved. That mid range acceleration is what I am after, although it did pump up the bottom end better than I expected. I also had several old turbos I had collected, the newest one was (20) years old, so I had very little money in this project. Turbosuperchargers had sorta died from the scene, through the '90's, except for high end stuff and some Chryslers, so it would be "different". Turbo's are enjoying something of a resurgence today, available on lower end vehicles than even five years ago and even personal watercraft. Short of sticking a V8 under the hood, the other way to mimic this is to force feed a smaller engine. Sure, it stresses the engine, and probably shortens the useful life somewhat, but with a useful life of something over 200k miles in N/A form, I figured I would give some of that up for an increase in performance. It gets boring when you raise the hood of an old Ford coupe and find a SBC <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Yep, you could take a BIG bottle of compressed air and do the same thing. It is true the S/C is somewhat cleaner looking, and you can make them plenty fast if you use the larger late model one, but then you need new heads too for the relocated injectors. The oil lines and such are pretty simple to do, but the manifolding does take some time. Cost is probably not all that different if all the parts are purchased new, but the turbo is probably cheaper if the T3 family is used as lots of parts interchange and upgrade wheels and housings are pretty cheap as well. I have a total of just under $700 in mine, but the ceramic coating of all the manifolds and turbine housing was the bulk of that,($525). The nice thing about the S/C is it is essentially a bolt on if you get the correct brackets for the front of the engine as well. You will have the same problem with getting the MAF to communicate with the ECM as it is different too and air flow will most likely be out of range. On the recording device situation: I talked with Rinda and they are unwilling to discount their price, but, I did get some good news from on the TurboLink. He says he will have a test device ready by early next week, and the price is the same as Diacom, plus it uses a Windows friendly graphic interface with unlimited recording capability (limited by my laptop capacity)

I believe the stock lights are 27.5 watts. They are really a poor excuse for a fog light, but they do make an okay daytime running light. Padgetts solution is a better one if you want a real useful light.

Oddly enough, I kinda like it. I'm not much into add ons and such but that looks almost functional in some way, so that would be acceptable. Barney's conjecture on the turbo hump makes sense, the rwd turbo would be in about that location, but you wouldn't want to cool it? Turbo Subaru WRX's have a scoop on the hood for the intercooler. Better to be stealthy if possible.

You are right about there being pros and cons to each system. I can only relate my thinking and you can take it as an opinion only. The S/C setup does involve some changes to the EGR operation, plus I never liked the idea of the S/C eating a bunch of horsepower just to turn it. My original thought, was to try to avoid any major changes to the basic operation of the rest of the systems, although I am finding that I set the bar too high for the capabilities of the stock systems. The second thing was the S/C setup has been done and I wanted something different. I also wonder about the longevity of the S/C unit, particularly if a smaller pulley is fitted to raise boost. The turbo uses essentially free energy from the exhaust, although it does raise underhood temperatures and there is some increase in the exhaust backpressure. There is the problem of making up the exhaust plumbing needed, but I saw that as a challenge. I can simply turn the boost up or down in a couple of minutes without changing pulleys like the S/C. If I would limit my max. boost to 5-6 psi, the system would probably operate okay right now, but of course I wanted more,(caused by boostitis). I also wanted a slower spooling of boost, to help the transaxle last longer. The S/C gives almost instant response and I saw the turbo lag as a good thing in this case. I even purposely left the outlet from the turbine and the exhaust size at the stock 2.25" size, to slow the spoolup. I even have the stock muffler, although no cat. I was surprised how fast it spools. For example, if I am cruising at 60 mph and about 10-12 inches of vacuum, when I kick the pedal down, such as for a pass, the boost jumps right to 8-9 psi before the shift is even completed. Hundreds of knock counts are the result, but I will get this figured out. Does anyone know what brand and part number injector is used on the early model S/C (L67?) engine. I am sure I need more fuel, but finding compatible style injectors is proving to be challenge. I will probably turn the fuel pressure up another 5 psi (10 psi total)to simulate larger injectors, although the spark timing needs work too. Just for info. purposes, I did relocate the MAT sensor to the outside of the outlet cone for the compressor and covered it to keep the heat approximatley what the outlet air temp is, although slow response. I saw a temperature of up to 80 deg. C., which is higher than my 72 deg.C. coolant temperature. Difficult to judge if this had any real effect on the MAF reading. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I did not realize at the time that ours was as dependant on the MAT sensor. I was copying an experiment a guy on the GN List that placed his on the outlet side of the compressor, actualy it's just before the throttle body like ours, but he has an intercooler. He reported it seemed to improve throttle response. Now I realize their MAT sensor is less in the loop and some of them actually remove it. It's easier to blow through a restriction than suck through it, and out MAF is relatively small, so I reasoned it would work. I does work, but maybe not as optimum as it could be. There may be room to move the MAT to the adapter cone on the outlet from the compressor. There is precious little room as my goal was to make this installation very compact, and the whole assembly can actually be removed and the stock crossover pipe put in its place, while leaving the modified manifolding in place. If I understand your conjecture, the cooling rate of the wire in the MAF will be less (due to elevated outlet temp.) than the ECM thinks it should be based on the inlet temp.from the MAT, right? If this is the case, the actual flow rate through the MAF is higher than it is calibrated for, making it peak later than it should. Youch! It's fairly easy to max it out now, so the MAF table flow limit will be reached sooner than it appears to right now. I will see about moving the MAT sensor, at least the fueling should better match the flow rate up to the limits in the computer. By the way, the raised fuel pressure had a small effect on the retard, and the BLM has now settled at an even lower reading, one cell was at 106, but the Integrator is still perking along above and below the magic 128. Trofe was thinking about the same thing. DOH! Thanks

Yep, the Integrator is running in the correct range. I did find Rinda's number and I will call them tommorrow. The only unfortunate thing is the lack of ability to record boost. Even the TurboLink wouldn't be able to do that. They do have the ability to do so for the GN's but they use the MAT sensor input for that function (using a 2 or 3 bar MAP sensor). He asked me for the number from my MAT sensor and told me I probably cannot remove it as our sensor is a wide range unit which is used to modify the signal from the MAF. How that is done is beyond me, but it doesn't really make sense in any case, since the heated wire should automatically compensate for warm or cold air. Maybe it is because ours only senses a portion of the air flow? If this is true, do you suppose the MAF being exposed to compressed air temps. which can be 100 deg.F. warmer than the MAT sensor sees messes up the calculations?

I finally installed the new regulator tonight and kinda punked out and only raised the base fuel pressure five psi. I have the same concern about the fuel pump so I will try little steps. It should at least give some indication if I am moving in the right direction. I couldn't try it as it got to dark to see the unlighted gauge on the windshield. As for a recording device, I haven't had much success. I contacted Rinda twice via E-mail but so far, nothing. I talked to the TurboLink guy at Bowling Green but they don't have one for me either. As for the BLM's: they are low at anything over a low speed cruise, like 30 mph in town. The turbo spools pretty quickly even without a lot of throttle so even though I am still showing vacuum on my boost gauge, there is more air flow available than normal. Just for info. purposes, I can cruise around town with reasonable acceleration and keep the vacuum gauge at 10" vacuum or more. Even my 38 mile trip to work can be done at more than 5" of vacuum even though there are areas where I have to merge with traffic at highway speeds. Steady state cruise at 65mph shows 10-12" vacuum and right around the 120-122 on the BLM. I do not know how low the BLM reading can adjust but there are some cells in the 117-118 range. If I keep my foot out of it and do my easy acceleration regime the BLM's will rise over time, so the ECM can certainly learn. If you have any pull with Rinda, I would be interested, and I will check their website for a phone number and see if I can contact them tommorrow. I'll see if Mr. Buckshaw will share files.

Thanks for the input. The BLM's seem to be way down already, around 120, although the Integrator is running good, above and below 128. I assume this is caused by the rise in pressure from boost. I do have a concern about the pump as well, that's why I run with a gauge attached. I did have a high output pump, and I cannot seem to locate it, but it will get a new pump soon. The original has almost 100k on it. I have been conversing with Dave Buckshaw who suggested changing to the early model S/C (L67?)ECM as he has programming for a turbo version of a 3800 he did. http://www.buckshaw.com/images/88turbo.jpg I know you guys mentioned that more than once, but is it compatible?

Thanks Padgett. I think I understand what you are talking about and it does make sense. I don't plan on race gas as a regular occurance but I needed to see if it would help and I am now pretty sure leanout is a lot of the retard problem. I finally got an adjustable pressure regulator that will fit so I can now turn the fuel pressure up and see if that helps. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Hey Padgett, I think I actually need both. More fuel is certainly needed for the hp. output and I am sure even the stock chip has too much timing for the boosted condition. I have been watching my fuel pressure with a gauge taped to the windshield (gets some strange looks). Base fuel pressure is about 42 psi with the vacuum off. Idle pressure is about 34 psi at 18" of engine vacuum, about a 2:1 ratio. The fuel pressure rises in a 1:1 ratio as it gets into boost, rising to about 51 psi at 8-9 psi boost. My plan for larger injectors has run into a problem as the intake manifold is machined without the little shelf in the injector hole to retain the little plastic cap on the common pintle type injector. For now, I plan to raise the base fuel pressure 10 psi to see if more fuel will help the knock. I have some success with a TPS Enhancer from Casper's Electronics, which puts the ECM into full fuel mode at about 2/3 throttle. I watched how it works and at about 2.8-3.0 volts the little box snaps the TPS signal to full voltage, or about 4.6 volts in my case. With my homemade 98-100 octane fuel, and the TPS modification, I can achieve 6 psi boost without retard. I would like to see something in the 8 degree spark retard at about 6 psi boost, any ideas? I talked with Bob Bailey, developer of the MAF Translator who told me they intercept the EST wire between the coil pack and ECM to retard timing based on air flow. Could we do the same with a simple adjustable pressure switch? I know it isn't that simple, but some hope maybe? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Swap meets and other gearheads are a good place to find older or discarded parts. I have $35 in the basic one I started with so my friend Trofeo has a leg up on me. Once he and I get our knock retard problems licked, it should be a killer setup. Buick should have built and sold the low boost (8-9psi) Reatta they built as an experiment. It is so effortless without much throttle. Sounds good too.

Yipee! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Thanks for letting us know how it came out.

4.2 inches front and rear with 2k miles on new struts. That's with 225/55-16 tires and no air in the rear air struts. Will go to over five inches at the rear with 100 psi in the struts, which does reduce wheelspin at full throttle starts. I agree the purpose of the gas is to reduce foaming but it does add a slight amount to the spring rate. Not a lot to be sure, but, when the car is static, it does not take much upward pressure to raise it a very slight amount. Have you ever noticed an increase in road noise when switching to a gas shock from a standard non-gas? The constant pressure tends to allow more noise through the bushings since they are almost always in some compression.

Just a suggestion, but look at gnttype website. Sorry my link doesn't seem to want to work, but type just as presented and it will take you there. Lot's of information devoted to those cars.

Sure looks like the fuel pump test plug. The green connector is the tip off.

If the original pump is in place I don't believe it will run unless the original pump is also operational. Most in tank pumps are the gerotor type and it should be virtualy impossible to suck through it. Check the actual fuel pressure, it should jump right to 42-44 psi as soon as the key is turned on.

Greg, a little off topic but those wheels look just like the American Racing wheels I put on mine?

Isn't that a 3800 Buick V6? It has a timing chain with spring loaded tensioner.

Yeah, this is a long thread, and perhaps it should be taken private, but there have been a lot of views of the thread, so perhaps there is some interest? As for the injectors, they are the stock 19# Bosch 901's. The stock injectors for a GN are 29.5#, which I have been told, (John Spina @ Casper's Electronics) are too large for my stock ECM to control well. I do have a set of GN injectors, plus another set from a Ford 351 which are rated @ 22 lb/hr. All of thes injectors are Bosch high impedance types, which would be operable by the ECM. BSFC calculations indicate the stockers are good for 225 hp @ 100% duty cycle, which can be extended to approx. 250 hp if the pressure is raised 8-10 psi. Much research needs to be done yet as to how large an injector may be needed. At this point the O2 volts are staying in the stock .9 range, but this can be caused by a misfire or knock retard as well, so that has to be brought under control to make a valid evaluation of how the engine is working internally. From what I have seen from Accel and MSD injector math, the 22lb injectors, (15% larger) "should" work with the stock computer calibrations. I will have to be careful with the throttle in the mean time. Thanks again for the support.