99 / 900 hybrid project... [Archive] - SaabCentral Forums

: 99 / 900 hybrid project...


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

ejenner
15th December 2006, 06:46 PM
I've bought a new car. It's a 1972 99 with a T16 engine fitted to it. It's also been converted to use the
later hubs so it has the later brakes, wheels and rear handbrake.

It goes, stops and handles very well. It was built for 'hill-climb' and 'sprint' events and from what I
understand it has been raced in the past but not that much. Just the odd event here and there.

I bought it from the original owner who did the conversion and who owned the car for about 10 years.
He's got loads of cars and selling this was part of an effort to cut down the size of his fleet. He's
started rebuilding another car now and needs the space so he's getting rid of a few of his cars.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/99T16_001.jpg

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/99T16_002.jpg

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/99T16_003.jpg

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/99T16_004.jpg


All the hard work has been done already. I've got some small refinements to make but essentially it's
an excellent car. There's a hatch below the dashboard for accessing the crank pulley. It's got two
APC units which are at different levels of tune. I've planned a couple of essential mods and bought
the parts off the Internet during the week. The mods are a cooling fan (as it does not have one yet) an
air filter (as it does not have one of those either) and a proper boost gauge with numbers on it. So not
too much fiddling.

Si
15th December 2006, 06:57 PM
Very sweet ride:cool: , have you got any more pictures of the cabin and roll cage?

Bawheid
15th December 2006, 07:11 PM
Im glad someone on here bought it, looks to be an excellent conversion. Something i can only hope to apsire to i reckon.

Would it be possible to see a few more pics of the engine bay if youve got any.

ejenner
16th December 2006, 03:41 AM
At the moment those are all the pictures I have. But I'll take a few more at some point.

ejenner
25th December 2006, 12:03 PM
Here's the first modification.

The crank pulley nut was nut and some other part of the assembly was hitting off the firewall access
hatch. (pictured above - below the dashboard) I heard this a couple of times on the way home after
buying the car but then it really started to rub quite badly as the car accelerated. The fact
that it rubbed a little bit on the day I bought the car leaves me reasonably comfortable about
the condition of the engine mounts. Also the fact the car was never meant to have this engine makes
me think it's ok if it doesn't fit 100% perfectly.

I removed the access pannel and turning it over I could see where the rubbing was happening. This is
a picture of the section I cut out from the cover. The cover is actually bigger than this but I cut out
this section as part of the modification process. You can see the rubbing marks where the pulley
nut was hitting the metal. The noise was pretty loud.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/crank_cover_003.jpg


To modify it I took the original cover and I cut out the rubbing section and replaced it with a raised
box made from aluminum box-section and stainless-steel plate. Riveted together with some
chemical metal filling up the gaps. The cover isn't flat or square so the box isn't square or flat
either. I then painted it in 99 beige coloured gloss.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/crank_cover_001.jpg


As an additional mod I've also applied a heavy bead of waterproof silicone around the back of
the cover as the cover used to vibrate when accelerating. A few of the screws also fell out
so the spring in the silicone should put pressure on the threads to stop them loosening off. Some
anti-shake washers are also going on.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/crank_cover_002.jpg

nutcase
26th December 2006, 06:43 AM
Have you got a photo of the hole in the bulkhead without the panel there? Showing the end of the crank?

ejenner
26th December 2006, 07:00 AM
I'll take one today as I'm refitting the pannel.

Tomarse
26th December 2006, 07:03 AM
Have you got a photo of the hole in the bulkhead without the panel there? Showing the end of the crank?

Tapemeasures at the ready ;)

nutcase
26th December 2006, 07:18 AM
LOL! Well I still have the odd issue with bluey and its hole in the bulkhead...

ejenner
26th December 2006, 07:42 AM
vernier gauge more like.

It's seriously close to the brake master cylinder and the upper part of the bulkhead as well. But the engine mounts are pretty solid and I can't see any other rubbing marks so we'll see how it goes.

ejenner
26th December 2006, 08:40 AM
Here's some more photos. This is the hole in the firewall. You could probably change the oil pump or crank
pulley quite easily using this access hatch.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/crank_cover_004.jpg


Here's one of the modified engine mounts. I believe it's a cross between a 99 engine mount and some other customised bracketry.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/engine_mount_001.jpg



Here's the oil cooler. Looks pretty sweet and you couldn't ask for better air-flow.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/oil_cooler_001.jpg



This is the intercooler space. Plenty of room in here nutcase! suggest you stop complaining and
fit an intercooler.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/intercooler_001.jpg


Clearance at the back.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/water_pump_clearance_001.jpg


Clearance at the front.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/front_clearance_001.jpg

scubasaab
26th December 2006, 09:03 AM
That is a really neat looking vehicle you have there!!
The engine compartment is so tight, I thought it was a Swiss watch!:lol:

Shan
26th December 2006, 09:08 AM
Lovely Saab you have there, ejenner :)

Hope you don't mind me posting these pics, it really is a beauty !

http://www.mytrolls.com/board/files/a2_3_172.jpg

http://www.mytrolls.com/board/files/89_3_304.jpg

http://www.mytrolls.com/board/files/8a_3_631.jpg

Tomarse
26th December 2006, 09:14 AM
This is the intercooler space. Plenty of room in here nutcase! suggest you stop complaining and
fit an intercooler.

You do realise that there is only lots of space there and good airflow because:

- you have big holes cut in the front that arnt there as standard and no bumper infront of them ;)
- you dont have a stupid huge k-jet filter box and metering plate stuck where your IC is.

:cheesy:


are single belt pulleys the 16v engine standard equipment or do i need to find a set off a 99 8v H engine?
It also looks like your engine has been fitted without modding the bulkhead around the water pump pulley? What do you reckon nutcase?.

It is impressive to see that can be done! It would be interesting to know if you can change the pump without removing the engine though? :confused:

It that some flexy pipe i see that your exhaust runs into to get round the gearbox x-member too? This engine swap is looking easier!..

nutcase
26th December 2006, 10:17 AM
No way an intercooler would fit in there without losing a lot of FI equipment or some moving around.

I think there's a bit of curvature that's non-standard by the waterpump pulley. Nowhere near as much as a factory H engine fit though.

Engine mount does indeed look standard 99 at the bottom, modded to fit the 16v head.

Not the neatest cuttout in the bulkhead :o That's the earlier type crank so slightly shorter. Mine is a tad longer so more clearance issues.

You should be able to get a fan to mount on the front of the rad. Looks like there's no headlight wipers to get rid of to clear space.

Tom, you do need a 99 or 90 pulley.

ejenner
26th December 2006, 01:55 PM
I've just finished putting it all back together. I fitted a boost gauge in place of the economy gauge as the economy gauge had no numbers and the needle broke so it was totally useless! I also fitted the air filter and screwed the crank-pulley cover back in place.

The bad news is that the pulley still touches the cover so I'm going to have to take it back off again and check where it's rubbing. I'll probably have to make a new cover. But it depends where it's rubbing. I guess it's not the nut touching the cover now - it's probably the pulley itself touching the cover.

I did buy an electric extractor fan for it a few weeks ago. But I've not had a chance to fit it yet. Boost gauge's are much more fun so I fitted that first.

ShadowWorks
26th December 2006, 02:31 PM
I made a small hole in a c900 to remove the crank pully once and welded it shut again, I wish I had made a peep hole cover like you, it looks helluva smart.

That is a fantastic car and will probably keep you very busy.

ejenner
27th December 2006, 02:34 PM
Well I took the cover off and there was no really obvious rub marks! I took it for a drive without the cover on and the pulley is actually rubbing off the firewall.

So I'm going to have to work out which bit of the firewall it's hitting and cut it out.

I'm also going to take a good look at the front engine mount just in case it's broken.

This car is turning out to be a bit more exciting than I'd expected it to be. still good fun though.

Tomarse
27th December 2006, 03:23 PM
I assume it has the 99 style front mount still?

It is also worth checking the bottom of the mount on the exhaust side of the engine. It has 2 'arms' at the bottom, one of which is bolted onto one of the engine-gearbox bolts. Mine has worked itself loose before and it makes the engine move more than it should.
There should be sealant on the bolt which should act as threadlock but it doesnt seem to be holding very well on mine.

ejenner
30th December 2006, 03:04 PM
Found out what the problem was. It wasn't the crank pulley rubbing. It was the alternator fins rubbing on the brake master cylinder servo. I couldn't really see it until I was looking for it. I spoke to the previous owner and he said he'd had a bracket holding the alternator off the brake master cylinder. I'd not noticed this before but after closer inspection I could see the rub marks and I also found the remains of the bracket which had broken off and fallen down into the engine bay. The bracket was made from a bit of M6 studding welded to the end of the alternator adjuster arm pin and a small bit of angle-iron held between two nuts screwed onto the end of the studding. The studding snapped which meant the bracket was no more and the alternator was free to smash into the brake master cylinder every time the car accelerated hard. Basically this bracket was stopping the engine from tilting backwards. For the moment I've knocked up a new bracket by welding a nut onto the end of the alternator pin and putting in an M12 bolt (slightly more substantial) and that's holding fine at the moment. However; in the long-term I think it might be a good idea to be a bit more honest about this problem and just stick in a big chunky engine mount onto the back of the cylinder head to hold the engine steady during acceleration.

Other news is that I've been messing about trying to cure the stutter. (yes I thought it had gone but actually it hasn't) First I started messing about with spark plug gap and ignition timing but that just proved I could have boost and stutter or no boost and no stutter so I reverted to the original settings. I've also fitted an adjustable fuel pressure regulator but I've not changed the settings yet. It's still in 'out of the box' configuration. First thing I noticed after fitting was how much it cleand up the idling. It's a rising rate FPR so the mixture is much leaner at idle now. Before it was so rich the car would barely run. I still have the stutter and if anything it might be worse. So on the basis that changing the FPR made the stutter worse I would think it was probably fuel stavation causing the stutter. Tomorrow I'm upping the pressure on the FPR and we'll see how that goes.

nutcase
30th December 2006, 03:10 PM
I had that fan hitting the servo problem on bluey - I cured it by using the 90 pulley and using brackets making the alternator sit back slightly. Just don't ask me where teh brackets came form. Either the original engine or the 16v engine or a mix. Took a lot of messing about.

ejenner
30th December 2006, 03:23 PM
The funny thing is that the belt does not even sit straight. Both the water pump and crank pulley are further away from the firewall. The belt comes diagonally back to go around the alternator pulley. For the sake of having less to worry about I just copied the original solution for the moment. But while pondering the difficulty I did think about cutting the second pulley off a 900 alternator and using it like that. I also thought about moving the alternator forward somehow. But just decided to keep it simple in the end.

Did your bluey not have an H-block to begin with then?

Tomarse
30th December 2006, 09:44 PM
Perhaps the pulleys dont line up right because of the mix and match you have to do using 90/99 pulleys and the 900 alt?

Can you change the pulley on the alt to make it line up better? or put it on the other way round or something (they are often offset one way).

Is it not possible use a shorter belt and move the alternator inwards slightly? This has worked on my ambi where it used to catch the wiring!

ejenner
31st December 2006, 04:40 AM
Is it not possible use a shorter belt and move the alternator inwards slightly?

Was thinking about that as well. Nothing wrong with that idea either. But if moving the alternator in further it would be even more important to get the belts lined up.

The pulley in there at the moment has 1 wheel which is set back about 1/2 an inch. The 900 pulley has a double wheel and the first wheel is set right against the fan blades on the alternator. It has no offset like the wheel in use at the moment. One plan is to cut down the 900 pulley so there's only one wheel on it as that should make the belt line up properly.

nutcase
31st December 2006, 05:04 AM
Sounds like you need an alternator from an H engine 99, and possibly its mounting bracket.

Yes Bluey had an H to starrt with, but a very early one and not all bits fitted to it. All the pulleys on mine are single row - crank, water pump and alt.

http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=661730&postcount=277

I *think* that is the current setup :lol:

ejenner
31st December 2006, 05:16 AM
So which is the 90 pulley and which is the 99 pulley?

http://www.saabcentral.com/phpgallery/albums/album25/DSCF0343.sized.jpg



That's the same alternator pulley as I've got on mine. So how come your's lines up and mine doesn't?

http://www.saabcentral.com/phpgallery/albums/album25/DSCF0341.sized.jpg


You can see in this picture of my waterpump from above that the belt is headding backward towards the alternator pulley.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/water_pump_clearance_001.jpg


Also; the other difference with your alternator is that the adjuster arm appears to be a totally different
shape to the one I've got. My adjuster arm has been cut off at the end and I think it looks more horizontial than
the one you have.

ejenner
31st December 2006, 05:18 AM
You've got a different alternator as well. Mine is the 900-type which has a long pin running along the top to hold the alternator to the ajuster arm. You've just got a simple bolt.

ejenner
31st December 2006, 05:27 AM
Euro Car Parts list an alternator to fit 90/99/900 modles from 1980-1983. I'll bet if I opened the bonnet on a 1980-1983 900 scrapper I'll find all the parts I need to get the pulleys lined up and set the alternator in towards the engine more.

Not as likely to find a 99 or 90 car scrapper so knowing ECP provide the same alternator for all three modles does help.

Saab-Daniel
31st December 2006, 06:00 AM
Ejenner, I've got a '83 car. Changed the alternator for a '92 version, needed the brackets from the 92-engine to make it fit. The bushings in the old one was shot (bushings in the bracket), and there's a clear difference between the way they line up. Don't know if I can be of any help?
Daniel.

nutcase
31st December 2006, 06:47 AM
The 90 pulley is the new one (on the left with the shorter spigot).

*probably* the alternator mounting bracket is what pulls it back then.

I did try the adjuster you have on yours but there was clearance issues of somekind so I went back to that type. I have a funny feeling that if I popped the bonnet and looked I have a hacked about version of your type on there now...

Wouldn't suprise me if the 81-93 900 had a different bracket to the 90/99 because there is so much extra space in the 900. I'll try and dig out the fiches and see...

sonett1
31st December 2006, 07:00 AM
The 99 and 900 H series enigine DO have different alternator brackets, the three mounting holes to the block are the same, but the 900 bracket will put the alternator about an inch further towards the bulkhead. I don't think it's the alternator that is causing the mis-alignment.

nutcase
31st December 2006, 07:14 AM
Agreed:

Alternator: 8571838 70A for 99 81-84, 90 85-87 and 900 81-85.
Brackets:

99: 9339656 which then changes at a certain chassis no. to 7511314
90: 7511314
900: 9339003 (supercedes to 7511249) then at a certain chassis no. 7510456 then again at a certain chassis no. 7511249.

A specialist should be able to supply the various bits.

ejenner
31st December 2006, 07:17 AM
Seems like we're building a strong case for switching over to old style bracketry here! I may have the wrong alternator though.

ejenner
31st December 2006, 07:21 AM
nutcase - which part numbers do you think I need? I was just planning on raiding the correct engine bay - but it might be difficult to find an old enough car as most of the breakers are newer cars now.

nutcase
31st December 2006, 07:22 AM
When I find my printed 99 book for those years I'll read it out. It's hard work using the fich reader as it's knackered :(

Your alternator possibly, might fit though :) I've yet to get my mitts on anything but a 99 alternator so can't compare.

nutcase
31st December 2006, 07:40 AM
Ok...

For the late 99 bracket (the 90 uses a different bar):

Bar 9348954 NLA
Bush 9354317 (bar to engine block)
Screw 8084006 (bar to engine block) NLA
Washer 7311772 x2 (bar to engine block) *
Sleeve 9323635 (bar to engine block) NLA
Screw 7970288 (bar to alt)
Washer 8029985 x2 (bar to alt)
Nut 8074106 (bar to alt)
Repair kit 9337593 (has the two rubber bushes and bolt to hold the alt to the bracket)
Screw 8098089 x3 (holds bracket to the engine)
Washer 8029985 x3 (washer for same) *

* = on the '86-'89 EPC these parts are used for the 900. Not many!

Tomarse
31st December 2006, 07:41 AM
Can you post a picture of your current alternator and bracket?

I have a big pile of scrap 99 alternators so can give you a single pulley off one of them if you like (or you can have a whole alt that needs rebuilding).
I have some 900 ones too so will have to compare the pulleys.

ejenner
31st December 2006, 07:52 AM
I've already got a single pulley on the current alternator but I am aware of the lack of pictures on this thread. At the moment I'm just changing disks, pads and shoes on the beemer but when I've finished I'll take some pictures of the alternator and put them up.

sonett1
31st December 2006, 08:09 AM
I wouldn't worry too much about the alternator, the right alternator bracket should solve your alignment issue.

nutcase
31st December 2006, 08:34 AM
Here's my current setup:

(Huge pic)

http://www.saabcentral.com/phpgallery/albums/album25/DSCF0805.jpg

Bear in mind I had a lot more trouble than you will because of my longer crank. Looks like I used the later bar with the adjustment cut off, and used the bolt for the same, cut down to be a normal bolt. That's held fine for a long time now (famous last words...)

Si
31st December 2006, 10:50 AM
I think i might do this with mine to fit the trigger wheel and sensor, will be easier it adjust it with the engine in place aswell if i put a hatch or something there.


http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/crank_cover_004.jpg

ejenner
31st December 2006, 10:56 AM
Every 99/900 should have one!

ejenner
31st December 2006, 12:36 PM
Here's the pictures of the alternator situation.


Here you can see the snipped-off end of the adjuster-arm. You can also see the alternator-pin runs 2 or 3
inches across the top of the alternator (900 style? )

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/alternator_brace_001.jpg


This picture shows my first ever attempt at welding. I've welded a nut onto the end of the shaft and
drilled-out the threads. On the right you can see a collar, then a nut, then a thick washer, then the nut
that's welded onto the end of the pin and then the final nut on the end of the bolt.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/alternator_brace_002.jpg


Here's the same area but pictured from a different angle.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/alternator_brace_003.jpg


This picture is a bit out of focus but you can see the head of the bolt resting against the brake master cylinder.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/alternator_brace_004.jpg


I'm going to change this setup at some point. But that job is on the back burner for the moment. Maybe in
the summer when there's more daylight.

ejenner
31st December 2006, 12:43 PM
Here's the pics of my intake setup.


http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/intake_001.jpg

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/intake_002.jpg

It's pretty similar to the way it was when I bought the car except now there is an air-filter in the line. It's
a very unrestrictive air-filter (just a wire cone with a thin peice of foam over it) but it will stop stones
and other things flying into the compressor wheel.


This is the RRFPR configuration.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/rrfpr_setup_001.jpg


I've got the pressure adjusted to 3.7bar at idle. Any less and I get stutter. It was raining when I took
the picture so don't worry, it's not leaking!

ejenner
7th January 2007, 01:09 PM
Well 3.7 bar at idle is the wrong pressure for the fuel regulator. If you're thinking about fitting one then the best setup I've found comes when you set it at 3 bar at idle. That produces the best performance on my setup. I've tried 2.5, 2.9, 3.1, 3.6 and the best performance seems to come when it's set bang on 3.0 bar. It was stuttering at idle because I've got it setup with no plug gap. But the mid-range stutter has gone since I fitted the new regulator.

Nutcase was round my house today nicking the sunroof out of my old 8v and I was going to take him out for a spin in the 99 T16 but unfortunately it decided to break a coolant fitting and spill out all of its coolant. At the time I had only quickly nipped down the road to drop a friend back at his house but noticed steam, coolant leaking into the footwell and the temperature gauge pointing upwards. So I drove back very carefully. Nutcase kindly took me to Halfords to pick up some new coolant so we should be back in business in the not too distant future. Just need to do some plumbing.

It was a plastic fitting and there seemed to be a lot of dried glue plastered around in the local area so I guess the glue gave way or the plastic bit broke. In any case; I'm glad it happened so close to home as I would've been stuck if it happened anywhere else.

Generally speaking (disasters aside) the car is running relatively well. The only problem I have now is that the boost is still dropping off at high RPM. I've changed the wastegate (and now it's much better) but I have a feeling it needs more fuel for proper top end performance. I was out driving around for about 2 hours last night, stopping to tweak the settings and then trying again. I think I have it setup as best as possible right now but it only feels fast for the first couple of seconds. It holds boost now (thanks to the new wastegate) but that boost is only showing up on the boost gauge. Actual performance has improved but I'm quite sure I'm not getting all it's got. Next thing is to look at injectors and fuel pumps. Getting good boost but not feeling the performance suggests to me that the thing is running very lean as it climbs up the rev range. I've tried turning up the regulator but I don't think the pump and injectors can supply enough fuel. I'll start looking at specs as soon as I've fixed the coolant leak.

Saab-Daniel
8th January 2007, 07:49 AM
Ejenner, might just be me, but it could be the other way around too, that it's running too rich?
You would see black smoke though, if you're running rich, I might add :)
Just thinking out loud...
Daniel.

ejenner
8th January 2007, 09:20 AM
As I said. I've been playing with the fuel pressure to try and get a smooth powerful acceleration right through the range but nothing I do will give good boost right to the red-line.

When I turn up the fuel pressure you see the effects of overfueling and when I turn it down I loose power. I'm assuming (because the rev counter's broken) that the power is fully available until about 3.5~4k rpm and then it's slowing down after that.

I'm going to look into it and see what I can find.

ejenner
10th January 2007, 06:02 PM
Ooo look. cam-shafts...

These are the Swedish Dynamic's re-grinds. Don't know if they'll make a significant difference or not. The price seemed reasonable so I thought I'd try them. They're brand new but bought second-hand.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/cam_shafts_001.jpg

Si
10th January 2007, 06:41 PM
Is'nt the general consensus regrinds ar'nt so good?

Do you know how they effect duration/lift compared to the normal cams?

ejenner
10th January 2007, 06:45 PM
Didn't know there was a general consensus?

I'll give them a try and see what they're like.

boxman
13th January 2007, 01:36 PM
emmett, i too had the same problem with the alt' hitting the servo, the answer is to fabricate a braket on the front of the gearbox to fit an extra mount as with all that power the front of the box lifts therefor allowing the back of the engine to hit parts that look far enough away not to hit

ejenner
13th January 2007, 05:00 PM
Martin of JamSaab saves the day. Phoned him yesterday and he said I could come and pick up the
alternator bracket from a 99 he had in his yard.

I popped down to Bristol this morning, took the bracket out of the 99 and brought it back. Got it
all fitted back into the car and it's very tidy looking.

I wanted to get it done this weekend as it burst a coolant fitting last Sunday and lost all the coolant.
As the alternator is quite close to lots of water pipes I wanted to sort the alternator problem before
sorting out the coolant problem.


Here's a pic of the two alternators side-by-side. You can see the alternator from the 99 is positioned
over two pieces of cardboard. This is because the pulley is different on the 99 alternator. The nut actually
sticks out further than the edge of the pulley.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/alternator_brackets_001.jpg


The car is running now although I've still got a small leak in the coolant system and I've created
some more problems for myself by changing the injectors for some red-top's from the 9k aero. Tomorrow
will be a day dedicated to refining todays bodges. Hope to have the car back in tip-top form by the end
of tomorrow.

nutcase
14th January 2007, 07:07 AM
Cor, bit of a trek :o :lol: Just a late thought, but did you try Saab Sanctuary? He's a bit nearer to you, but only tends to do the older 99's.

ejenner
14th January 2007, 08:44 AM
I've heard the name before but I've never really had them in mind when phoning around for spares. Your advice is proving very valuable - will consider them next time! Thanks.

nutcase
14th January 2007, 09:14 AM
In this case I'd have been suprised if he had one - from what I can tell the 1709/1850 and the B engine's are more his forte.

ejenner
15th January 2007, 03:01 PM
Got it all going again yesterday. But still not got full boost.

I've found the problem though! (eventually)

I should've checked earlier but the APC is actually pulling back the boost. Disconnected the wastegate hose and WhoooooAAaaa. According to me there's nothing wrong with the setup. Plenty of good quality fuel, not trying to run the car in scorching hot conditions, ignition set to the sweet point, ect, ect... But the APC disagrees. As nutcase has whitnessed - the wiring isn't 100% and I'm guessing the knock sensor and cable could do with comming out and being re-routed and it might be damaged so possibly needs to be replaced.

Tomarse
15th January 2007, 03:24 PM
It would be worth fitting LEDs for both the knock sensor and the APC fine tune mode. They help a lot in telling you when the APC is playing with your boost in my experience.
saab-daniel has posted which pins you need on the 14pin box.

Saab-Daniel
16th January 2007, 08:01 AM
Pin5 is grounded when knock occours.
Pin13 is grounded when F-circuit is active.
Daniel.

ejenner
16th January 2007, 11:32 AM
Forgot to say earlier. The alternator mod has been very successful. Not a single bit of rub!

Although it wouldn't be very hard to fit the LED's (the bottom of the APC is sticking straight out of the dashboard) I don't think that would really assist with the current issue. I know it's the APC pulling back the boost so the first thing I'm going to do is make sure the knock sensor is mounted according to spec and that the cable is running a good route. I think it's running straight past the alternator at the moment!

Saab-Daniel
16th January 2007, 04:08 PM
Good thing you solved one problem.
Why not fit the LED's, you can see if it's due to knock or something else...?
Daniel.

ejenner
21st January 2007, 04:48 AM
I've replaced the cable to the knock sensor and run the cable a different route. But still not getting
the boost to stay up there. Keeps dropping back!

I've bought some LED's and I'm going to fit them so I can see what the APC's are doing! I get the same
problem from either APC so it's not a fault in the box.

On a better note. I also fitted my 16" Citroen wheels yesterday. The super-cheap Nankang rubber
is still in very good condition (they've only done 4k miles) The steering is even heaiver than before.
Good for the shoulder muscles!

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/99T16_005.jpg

ejenner
21st January 2007, 06:59 AM
Was thinking about a paint job. Not in the near future. Maybe some time in the next 6 months?

This is my plan. It's not a very good photoshop so I have to squint at it to imagine how it would look.

I think that's my choosen colour scheme. But some other colours might be good as well.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/99T16_006.jpg

nutcase
21st January 2007, 07:04 AM
Starksy and Hutch style!

Did the bigger wheels fit ok then?

ejenner
21st January 2007, 08:26 AM
yeah - Starksy and Hutch

I've not driven very far with the new wheels but they seem ok.

Tomarse
21st January 2007, 09:05 AM
youve made the new paint job complicated havent you! - you have not just changed some of it but totally inverted all the colours!

If you do go for the majority red with a white stripe you may make it look more like a standard 99t that has had a white stripe added (proper 2 door 99Ts only came in black or red in the UK!).
The current white with red stipe is much more unique!

Bawheid
21st January 2007, 11:48 AM
I had been thinking about this for my 99, although i was going to do it blue with a white stripe. The reasoning was i have a cream bonnet which is in great condition and the bonnet at the moment is knackered so instead of trying to colour match to 23 year old paint id do it white and get vinyl stripes made up to match.

Anyway heres a couple of images i did before christmas.

http://www.saabphotos.com/gallery/albums/album479/red.jpg

http://www.saabphotos.com/gallery/albums/album479/car_copy.jpg

ejenner
21st January 2007, 01:31 PM
That blue / white looks like it might be the way to go!

I'm not going to do it soon. 6~12 months time. The doors have to be replaced because they're laced with rust. Totally. The replacement doors are black so they'd need painting to match. Looks like I've also got a bit of rust to deal with on other parts of the body! I hate rust!

ejenner
28th January 2007, 02:28 PM
Good news. The cams are in and the whole car is running perfectly at the moment. But the next issue is just around the corner. I was seeing the charging light illuminate just before I put it to bed this evening. It would dissappear if I increased the engine speed to about 2k but any less than that and the light would be on. Guess the new alternator needs a refurb!

In the end the APC was causing so much grief I decided to eliminate it and stick in a manual boost controller. I've been on a long test drive and it's running fine! I need to get it down to the rolling road for analysis to make sure.

ShadowWorks
28th January 2007, 08:03 PM
The exciter maybe goosed, if you take a known positive wire and connect it do the D+ terminal and you still have the same problem its the alternator.

I highly recommend a Bosch Range Rover alternator, always having 13.8 volts and 150 amps at 3000rpm makes everything electrical run better, even at idle it can produce 65 amps.

ejenner
29th January 2007, 01:49 AM
Nope. Can't change the alternator. See all the fun and games on the previous page for an explination!

ejenner
4th February 2007, 03:22 PM
Replaced the brush pack. That's fixed the alternator problem. But guess what...! Something else... :roll: The oil pressure gauge is reading something like 6 bar when gently moving the car around. Noticed the problem straight away and just turned the car around and drove back to the house. Probably drove it about 1/4 of a mile in total. It didn't feel like there was anything wrong. The back of the alternator is right next to the feed for the oil pressure gague so hopefully somethings wrong with the gauge and the oil pressure isn't really that high.

Does anyone know what might cause massive oil pressure that could be picked up on the gauge. The gauge is connected at the oil filter housing so that's where the measurement is taken.

Matthew
4th February 2007, 05:10 PM
Blockage?speedparts

ejenner
5th February 2007, 02:13 AM
so what comes after the oil filter housing on the oil circuit? Trying to imagine what could be blocked.

Saab-Daniel
5th February 2007, 06:52 AM
The oil-cooler?
Daniel.

ejenner
5th February 2007, 07:18 AM
I spose the oil cooler would be after the filter housing. It could be after the oil cooler though. Maybe the turbo? or a blockage between the head and the block? Or - hopefully - the gauge is wrong!

I've got to change the engine at some point. But I don't want to be forced to do it. I'd rather do it when I have the time! and I'd like to go to Castle Coombe with the old engine.

I've also got a big oil leak. Could a big oil leak cause and lack of oil cause the gauge to read such a high reading? Or would that have the oppsite effect?

philb
5th February 2007, 08:41 AM
oil pressure relief valve?

Saab-Daniel
5th February 2007, 09:01 AM
Or maybe just the wiring?
I have an oil-pressure-gauge on my car, just not hooked up yet. It shows 6bars of pressure (which is the max for the gauge), because it can't measure the resistance in the sensor (it's not fitted).
So maybe it's an idea to look for wire-trouble?
Try to turn on the ignition, how does the gauge react? If it maxes out, then you have wiring-trouble...
Daniel.

ejenner
5th February 2007, 05:39 PM
Decided to have a look at it this evening. I started it up and the pressure climbed back up to 5~6 BAR region. I carefully checked around the engine for problems and couldn't find anything. I checked the oil level just in case there was something funny going on in that department. Couldn't find anything wrong so I decided to try and flush it out by going for a steady drive. After 2 or 3 minutes it started to stabilise and went back to normal readings of about 3.5~4 BAR during normal driving and dropping right back down at low engine speeds and at idle.

I think it's time for an oil change!

noturbo900
6th February 2007, 06:45 PM
I just came across this thread, and that car is too cool. The paint job is awesome, I vote for not changing it!

ejenner
16th February 2007, 06:49 PM
The paint job is growing on me. I might stick with the standard colours for a while. I think they're both standard 99 colours.

Started doing the oil change last weekend. I used my new fluid extractor!! bloody brilliant - everyone should get one! Just stuck the straw down the filler tube, pumped up the vacuum and all the oil drained straight into the sealed body of the fluid extractor. Another motivator for changing the oil was so I could also change the oil pump seals. There was a big leak from the rear of the engine. The leak was there when I got the car and it got worse over the last few weeks. To change the oil pump seals required removal of the crank pulley. (Some of you might have seen the thread on the crank bolt removal process I've just had to go through ( http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94715 ))

One thing lead to another and instead of replacing the seals on the standard oil pump cover I decided to swap the oil pump cover for one with the built in hall-sensor - ready for direct ignition install! I've cleaned up the new oil pump, tested the sensor and bought some new BCPR7ES-11 spark plugs. Should be able to get most of the sensors fitted during the weekend and maybe I'll get as far as slotting in the DI cassette!

Prior to changing the oil I dumped in a can of the professional engine flush. I bought this from the local Saab specialists. They always use engine flush during a service and as I seemed to have a bit of an 'oil problem' I decided I'd try and fix it with chemicals...! After adding the engine flush to the running engine the oil pressure dropped right down and was much lower than normal. The instructions say to add the engine flush to the original oil and then run at a fast idle speed for about 10~15 minutes before draining.

So it's looking good. Summer's fast approaching. So this car will have to stop hogging so much of my time as I really need to be working on the carlsson project.

ejenner
17th February 2007, 03:05 PM
Started doing the 'Direct Ignition' conversion today. I've lost the fuel ECU from the DI car though so not sure how far I'm going to get over the course of the weekend. Maybe I can carry on using my current ECU - but I doubt it.

Today the most I managed to do was to fit the oil pump cover. The reason I've managed so little was that the existing crank pulley couldn't take a DI shutter-wheel. To work around this issue I took one of the more standard tripple pulleys from a 900 EZK car and modified it. Basically I cut the front off the pulley so it would fit into the 99 engine bay. Then I modified the DI shutter wheel by milling some material out from the middle and elongating the screw holes so it would fit onto the back of the EZK pulley. They're not interchangable without a bit of modification.

I put it all back together and started it up. Took it on a test drive and it was fine. Only problem is that the new pulley I'm using is about 1 or 2mm wider than the old pulley and it's contacting the firewall on hard acceleration... (oh that old favorite again!) It's not the end of the world though. I've got a great big T16 lathe which I can use to help me remove some material from the crank pulley. i.e. I'll open the hatch and put a tool against the pulley while the engine is running and shave off some material like that. Don't worry - I'll do it safely - a mate of a mate chopped off two of his fingers messing about with pulleys, belts and running engines - I'll try to take special care not to injure myself.

On a downer - the test drive ended about 20 feet away from the parking space. I couldn't get it restarted and had to push it the rest of the way home. During the drive it had been missing on one of the cylinders and the problem developed to the point where the car wouldn't drive. It could be an ingnition or fuel issue. Not sure which at the moment.

ejenner
25th February 2007, 03:50 AM
The issue preventing the car from running was a fuel issue. Basically it had run out of petrol. I used a 5 litre plastic can of petrol to get it started and the drove it straight to the petrol station. The fuel gauge was showing about 1/8 of a tank remaining and has shown less in the past so I didn't think that it had run out!

I found the fuel ECU last weekend and started working out which pins did what. During the week I spent a couple of hours on one day after work joining the fuel ECU to the DI ECU.

Yesterday I connected all of the ECU wires so todays task is to wire up the DI wires. I've removed the dissy and plugged the hole with an aluminum bung from a 9000. I fitted two o-rings to the bung as I didn't have any of the right ones. Fitting two o-rings made it fit really well so I'd be very surprised if any oil started leaking through there.

ejenner
25th February 2007, 06:26 PM
Well I finished fitting all the kit today. I thought it would be a miracle if it were to start! and it didn't..! I did some basic checks to make sure there was voltage getting through to the ECU's and some other components like the AMM. I only finished connecting all the cable's at about 1800hrs so I've not really had a chance to carry out a full diagnostic yet.

A hint on where the problems are starting came when I removed a spark plug and found it was totally dry. With my fuel setup I would normally expect to see at least some evidence that there had been some fuel in the combustion chamber. The spark plug was as clean and dry as it had been when it was taken out of the box and fitted into the cylinder head. So I reckon I've got a fueling issue rather than a DI issue. Of course it's possible neither unit is functioning!

I don't suppose I'll get a chance to look at it between now and next weekend so it will have to wait until then.

On the upside the engine bay looks great without a distribuitor and DI cassette in the top of the cylinder head. Much tidier!

skilpadda
27th February 2007, 02:05 PM
Fuel ECU are probably not getting an rpm signal.

ejenner
27th February 2007, 03:38 PM
good idea. I'll take the back off the connector and make sure the signal is getting through to the pin on the ECU. I'll find out loads of stuff doing that.

Si
27th February 2007, 04:56 PM
Is'nt part of the DI's job to tell the injectors when to fire?

ejenner
27th February 2007, 05:37 PM
nope.

The DI and fuel ECU's are separate but some of the pins from the DI ECU feed straight to the fuel ECU. Some of those pins are for shared sensors but I think one or two of those pins are for enrichment when the DI picks up knock.

Other than that I believe the fuel ECU operates as normal. The same ECU is used on dissy equipped cars.

Si
1st March 2007, 05:39 AM
It must just be the Trionic DI then as it uses a crank sensor to tell if the set of pistons are comming towards TDC then ion sensing to detect which cylinder is on it's compression stroke and when to inject the fuel & fire the plug.

Have you managed to get it running yet?

ejenner
1st March 2007, 08:35 AM
Not done anything recently.

There are some signals for piston postition comming from the cassette so I guess there must be some sort of ION sensing going on.

Si
1st March 2007, 08:52 AM
I'll be very interested to see how it's comming on, are you definitely going to be running it at Castle Combe? I'll have the intercooler on the NG by then and maybe even the 3" dump pipe if the 2 WG housings are compatible.

ejenner
1st March 2007, 10:57 AM
It's only an electrical fault and there are several weekends between now and April 21st so I should get it working in time!

ejenner
3rd March 2007, 06:53 PM
WOW!



Got the thing running this afternoon!

I wasn't expecting to get it going so soon as I didn't believe it would be so easy to replace the fuel ECU and ignition system in one session.

As it started up the first thing I noticed was how quietly and smoothly it was idling. I turned it off again and did a bit of tidying-up. There was quite a bit of mess to clear as I'd been cutting and joining lots of wires. As soon as I was ready I fired it up again and started off on a test drive. I drove it slowly to begin with; giving the car some time to warm up. Driving a familiar route. The engine was up to running temperature but I had to wait as the traffic was holding me back. I got to the roundabout on the approach to the dual carriageway. Now I was getting ready to let-rip but what was even more exciting was the fact that I had company. Formed from some combination of fibreglass wings other Japanese parts it looked pretty impressive. not sure which brand. As I planted the accelerator for the first time I was amazed to find I'd made a fine job of it! Me and the car shot off down the dual-carriageway like a cat jumping out of a bath and Nippon followed. I looped the roundabout at the end of the road to make my way back and the plastic car followed. He was right behind as we left the roundabout so I stuck my toe down again and I swear the gap was getting bigger..! I can't be sure as there was plenty of graphical evidence to suggest a slightly rich mixture and it was difficult to see what sort of gap there was. The wing-thing also pulled into the petrol station and we had a chat (the usual kind of conversation)



Anyway - The car is mad!


Unfortunately after wing-man left the petrol station I tried to restart the 99 but it wouldn't fire up. There was a good strong wiff of petrol and it was spitting fuel out the exhaust as I was trying to start it. I couldn't get it going! In the end the battery went flat and I had to call a tow.

So the 99 is back at the house. I've no doubt we'll be out on the road for another 'test-drive' in the very near future.


The car is awesome.

Matthew
3rd March 2007, 07:24 PM
I can't find sufficient words, so will respond with this:

:cool:

:cheesy:

All that with a stock DI map which is conservatively tuned. When George Clarkson (Ylee Coyote) gets Fredrick from Maptun over next time, get him to map the thing properly. I bet Fredrick knows how to remap DI.

Either way, you need to get it dynoed, if only for an AFR plot.

we had a chat (the usual kind of conversation)
The one that begins "WTF..." :cheesy:

Sounds like a blast to drive :cool: Good find :cool:

ejenner
3rd March 2007, 07:33 PM
I'll do some pictures tomorrow.

Don't forget; the 99T16 probably weighs less than a ton but it's using almost all of the kit from a fairly fast 9000. Calculate that power-to-weight ratio!

Wonder if the Carlsson spec DI/APC unit uses the same 'conservative' map? Did they just tweak the boost or does it do different ignition settings as well? Nobody really pays much attention to the old non-tronic cars.

Matthew
3rd March 2007, 07:54 PM
Given that super unleaded is not specified for the Carlssons, I'd expect the fuel map to be the same conservative one.

I have to say, given the effort of fitting a different engine management system, I'd have gone for Megasquirt over DI. At least then you can tune the thing yourself. It has wideband lambda support too!

Saab-Daniel
3rd March 2007, 08:35 PM
The DI-map is very conservative. I helped mappe a c900 with DI, to make it more aggressive.
Above 0,75 bar of pressure, you have to set the timing statik, as the mapsensor wont read
above this pressure. This really leaves you with limited ressources. The map can be improved very much though, which we did. Made the car much more responsive.
Let me know if you want the program and the maps...
Daniel.

Matthew
3rd March 2007, 08:39 PM
Tell me more about the program you used to remap the DI box...

Saab-Daniel
3rd March 2007, 08:42 PM
Ragnar has developed it, It's called DI-edit, afair. I have it on my puter. Let me know if you want it...
Daniel.

Matthew
3rd March 2007, 08:44 PM
Nah... Megasquirt for me! ;)

Clever stuff though, creating something to talk to the DI box.

ejenner
4th March 2007, 03:49 AM
Daniel - the car is 'monster fast' already but having the mapping gear would be great. Then if I do feel like playing around with it... please send it over!

ejenner
4th March 2007, 04:01 AM
Just a comment on DI - v.s. megasquirt. The DI gear was free, it took 3 days to fit and debug and now everythings working. By comparison; megasquirt would cost money and I'd suggest that it's more difficult to setup and it would take more time to get to the 'happy' point. The DI kit I have on this car is from the 2.0 Carlsson so it's already tuned for 204bhp. Fit and forget! Now I can start woking on the handling. If I 'need' more power in the future I can get a chip from Swedish Dynamics or I might be able to use Daniel's tuning gear.

Saab-Daniel
4th March 2007, 04:28 AM
Hmm, the editing gear is for the 88-model with DI+APC, so am not sure if it will work... But anyway, here you go:
http://www.fischer-saab.com/Hosting/DI-edit.CAB
Daniel.

ejenner
4th March 2007, 05:00 AM
how do you upload the map to the DI unit?

Saab-Daniel
4th March 2007, 09:21 AM
You don't, you burn a chip with this program, then fit it to the box.
Daniel.

Matthew
4th March 2007, 09:44 AM
The DI gear was free, it took 3 days to fit and debug and now everythings working.
That's a very good result, and I see that DI as right for you in this case. I reckon three days is damn good. Did you use David Fisher's DI conversion guide?

ejenner
4th March 2007, 10:18 AM
The only bit of relevant info on that page was the pin-out for the DI/APC unit. It's not really a good guide and I'm going to update it just in case anyone else tries a DI conversion. It seems like he used DI+APC for his setup. The picture showing the ECU's sitting on the floor shows separate black and red boxes sitting next to eachother. My setup uses one red box with DI/APC written on the front.

I found out that I can get the car started by disconnecting the coolant temperature sensor. I don't know if that means the CTS is faulty or if it's just a qwerk of my setup. I'm going to try changing the CTS.

ejenner
11th March 2007, 03:55 PM
Here's some pictures of todays activities. As I've been having a problem with high oil pressure and after trying all the quick fixes I decided to bite the bullet and change the engine. When I bought the car the previous owner told me the engine would need changing at some point. This was on the basis that he'd scraped the bearings so there wouldn't be as much friction in the assembly. He gave me a spare engine with the car. Today as I was taking the engine out I noticed what sort of differnce the scraped bearings made - it was possible to turn the engine over by gentley pressing on the flywheel with my little finger. Nothing like normal.


Cylinder head:

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/engine_out_001.jpg


Headless engine:

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/engine_out_002.jpg


Taking out the block:

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/engine_out_003.jpg

Tomarse
11th March 2007, 04:28 PM
I'm amazed how keen you are to pull engines out ;)

Can you please take lots and lots of pictures of your bulkhead from the engine side while the engine is out of the way! Thanks ;)

ejenner
11th March 2007, 05:05 PM
yes - guess I've been particularly unlucky with engines recently. Did the 900i 8v twice (edit: forgot - make that three times - once was for a gearbox) and had to pull the engine out of this one as well. Fast turn-around is the key though...! I reckon I'll have it back up and running by the end of next weekend. So long as there aren't any disasters!

Forgot to mention earlier - see the picture of the cylinder head? There's a plug stuck in where the dissy came out! Cool eh! I'll post some detailed pictures of the DI conversion when I'm putting it back together.

Saab-Daniel
12th March 2007, 04:01 AM
Damn, that's just too bad ejenner...
That exhaust manifold isn't standard, now is it? Looks like it's custom made to me!
Daniel.

ejenner
12th March 2007, 04:20 AM
naa - you're just an 8v boy! looks normal to me. The top of the manifold is black where oil has been dripping onto it and that's creating a bit of a shadow.

Saab-Daniel
12th March 2007, 05:03 AM
Haha, true, but I know my way around a 16v, just thought it looked different. Maybe it's the angle the pictures' shot at...
Daniel.

Matthew
12th March 2007, 07:20 AM
Blimey Emmett, you don't hang around do you :lol: You may as well scrub the engine bay while you're there... wanna buy a steam cleaner? :lol:

I thought the manifold looked different too! It's the angle of the rectangular fitting for the turbo. Must be the photo.

Tomarse
12th March 2007, 08:27 AM
I thought the manifold looked different too! It's the angle of the rectangular fitting for the turbo. Must be the photo.

It is because the head itself is level in that picture. You are used to seeing it on the engine at an angle - which leaves the manifold level not the head.

(took me a while to work it out too!)

Matthew
12th March 2007, 08:58 AM
No, I thought of that before I posted. I didn't think the angle of the face of the block was great enough to make the top longest edge of that fitting to be parallel with the ground.
http://www.hexfiles.com/saabcentral/a6vey/head_gasket_repair/DSCF5410.JPG

But then, it must be...

Shan
12th March 2007, 11:25 AM
Another view of the exhaust manifold, when taken from the side, parallel to the manifold flange to cylinder head :

http://www.saabphotos.com/gallery/albums/General_Pics/Exhaust_manifold_parallel_to_head_face.jpg

:)

ejenner
15th March 2007, 09:19 PM
Mini update. As I'm aiming to get the car back on the road by the end of Sunday I decided to do a bit of evening work after getting home from the office. I normally don't do anything on the cars after work but I'm keen to get the 99 up and running again.

I lugged an old block out of the back of the garage, dumped it on the workmate and then attached it to the engine stand.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/new_engine_001.jpg


I took a few more pictures of the block before I stripped it down but they didn't come out very well so can't use them.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/new_engine_002.jpg


This is an old 8v block and has the low compression pistons :cool:

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/new_engine_005.jpg


Hopefully I'll get a chance to give it a lick of paint tomorrow evening. Then probably again on Saturday morning. There's loads of old 'crud' to remove from this block but the important bits seem fine. I'll reseal the gaskets and replace the other seals as I put it back together. I've got a 2.3 head and lightened flywheel also kicking around; I'll stick those on too. I'll also swap over all the good bits from the other engine as I know all of those things were working before I took it out.

BIRDIEMANGO
16th March 2007, 10:01 PM
HELLO AGAIN,EJENNER,GLAD TO SEE SOMEBODY BOUGHT THIS CAR,WHO IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT...........:lol:
ONLY TWO THINGS PUT ME OFF IT,WHEN I SAW IT
1.IT WAS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE COUNTRY
2.SOMEBODY ELSE HAD BUILT IT,SO IT WOULD BE A LEARNING CURVE ALL OVER AGAIN,TO SEE HOW IT ALL WORKS,WIRING ETC
GLAD TO SEE YOU ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE WITH IT.....:D
I HAD ENORMOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE DELLORTO'S ON THE 99,WHICH I EVENTUALLY TRACKED DOWN TO THE ALTERNATOR BUSHES.......
BASICALLY IN THE FOREST (IT WAS FINE ON TARMAC)THE CAR WOULD RUN FOR ABOUT A MILE,AND THEN EFFECTIVLEY RUN ON TWO CYLINDERS......
THIS WAS DUE TO THE CARBS VIBRATING ON THE MANIFOLD,THE REAR MOST CARB WAS CONTACTING THE ALTERNATOR,CAUSING THE FUEL TO AEREATE IN THE CARB,AND A SEVERE LOSS OF POWER :evil:
ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION IT WAS ACTUALLY THE K&N FILTER CAUSING THE PROBLEM,SO I FITTED SOME 80MM TALL FILTERS,SUCH THAT THE FILTER ELEMENT ITSELF COULD BE SHAPED OUT OF THE WAY,TO CLEAR THE ALTERNATOR BODY,AND THE STAINLESS COVER PLATES WERE FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM THE ALTERNATOR,TO STOP THE VIBRATIONS,PROBLEM SOLVED:lol: SOME NEW ALTERNATOR MOUNTING BUSHES ALSO HELPED.....:p
I HAVE ALSO GOT AN EARLY 99 WITH A 'H' ENGINE 8 V INJECTION ENGINE PLONKED IN IT,THE PREVIUOS OWNER HAD 'SHAPED 'THE BULKHEAD WITH A LUMP HAMMER:roll:
THE 99T WHICH I AM DOING AT THE MOMENT WILL BE GETTING THE LATER BULKHEAD 'PIECED IN' TO ACCOMODATE THE 'H' SERIES MOTOR IF I DECIDE SUCH, AT A LATER POINT......LEAVING OPTIONS OPEN......ENGINE'S ETC

ejenner
17th March 2007, 05:01 AM
That's what I like about fuel injection - so much easier to work with... although a carburettor man would argue it's exactly the other way around! I think the ultimate Saab engine is the 2.0 with a head from a tronic equipped car. T7 head. The valves are bigger in the T7 head so you've got a breathing advantage right at the heart of it all. Only problem is that the T7 head is not a direct bolt-on. The timing cover needs to be modified (and maybe some other things)

Comments on the build of this car. I think it's not too bad. The car managed a 200 mile journey back from Devon without breaking anything except a headlight relay (failed when I was about 5 miles from home) There have been a few disasters, like the alternator catching off the brake servo case, and the coolant system exploding - but other than that it's been fairly ok. There would've been less work to do if I haddn't been messing around with it as much. I believe the bulkhead is also 'hammer' modified on this car. But it's not a showpeice - so does not matter. One of the coolest things on it is the hatch which lets you get into the back of the engine and access the crank pulley.

BIRDIEMANGO
17th March 2007, 05:24 AM
I LOVE THE SOUND OF THE TURBO 99/900 AS IT BURBLES ALONG,YOU CAN HEAR ONE COMING IN THE DISTANCE IF YOU HAVE A TRAINED EAR:D
BUT I ALSO LUV THE SOUND OF THE DELLORTO'S AT FULL CHAT :cool: SUCKING TREES IN ,RETURNING 12 MILES TO THE GALLON...........
SPEAKING OF WHICH,WHAT SORT OF FUEL TANK IS IN IT.........REASON I ASK,IS THE HEREDITARY 'KANGAROO'EFFECT EVERY TIME YOU GO ROUND A LEFT HAND BEND,ALL THE PETROL SLOSHES TO THE RIGHT,AND STARVES THE INJECTION PUMP.........SAAB,WOT WERE THEY THINKING;oops:

I INSTALLED A TANK FROM YOUR VERY MODEL,FROM UNDER THE CAR INTO THE BOOT.ALTHOUGH IT IS STEEL,IT IS INTERNALLY BAFFLED INTO 3 SUB -SECTIONS.
THIS WAS DONE PURELY DUE TO COST,ALLOY TANKS LOOK LOVELY,BUT THE COST OUTWEIGHS PRACTICALITY..........IT ALSO STOPS HUGE ROCKS CRASHING INTO YOUR FUEL TANK,(AND DISPENSES WITH THE NEED FOR A BIG THICK TANK GUARD,MORE BLOODY WEIGHT )AND ALLOWS ENORMOUS ACCESSIBILITY TO REAR SUSPENSION WHEN YOU ARE IN A HURRY...
ON THE 99T,I AM THINKING OF GETTING A SMALL 1.5 GALLON TANK MADE EITHER TO GO IN THE BOOT,OR REMOVE HEATER ASSEMBLY UNDER THE BONNET AND HAVE A TANK MADE TO FIT,AS WELL AS STANDARD TANK.
THIS WAY I CAN RETAIN THE DRIVEABILITY FOR EVERYDAY,AND USE IT FOR MOTORSPORT AS WELL....
ON ANOTHER THOUGHT,I HAVE GOT A STEEL TURBO TANK ,BAFFLES AS WELL.....BUT IT IS FROM A 3 DR.
THE FILLER PIPE ORIFICE IS ON THE WRONG SIDE,BUT IT WOULD FIT IN THE BOOT.........NOWHERE TO PUT ME UMBRELLA THEN,THOUGH...:o

Tomarse
17th March 2007, 05:47 AM
NO NEED TO SHOUT Birdiemango! :lol:

what is wrong with mudifying the bulkhead with a big hammer then? ;) Its not like you see it!
I'm probably just going to chop it and fit a curved section on mine to accomodate the engine.

Nutcase has fitted fuel tank foam inside the tank on his 99T to prevent fuel starvation on corners. sounds much easier than swapping the tank! (especially if it means that the filler is on the wrong side!)

You could convert it to LPG and do away with the petrol tank ;) I'm going to fit a small fuel tank opposite the spare wheel in mine,.

ejenner
17th March 2007, 05:59 AM
I've got a later plastic tank on the car. I've also no choice but to keep the tank as full as possible at the moment. The fuel gauge does not give a proper reading so I've no idea how much fuel is available. I'll sort that out at some point - but it's only a niggle and getting the engine back in the car is more important. Rev counter does not work, don't like the steering wheel, ect, ect... I have had a non-start issue caused by not having any fuel in the car on one occasion - the gauge was showing 1/4 of a tank. (see earlier post)

NO NEED TO SHOUT Birdiemango!

Don't start that again...! all the UKS boys were going mad about it! Incidently Birdie, you forgot to switch on the Caps Lock for your first ever post on this forum. Is this a sign of weakness, are you about to give-in? :lol: I spose you could go back and edit the post and re-do it all in CAPS.

BIRDIEMANGO
17th March 2007, 06:05 AM
;oops: SO I DID.HOW EMBARRESSING........MIND YOU I WAS A LITTLE PIE-EYED LAST NIGHT,TOOK ME ALL ME TIME TO SEE THE KEYBOARD,LET ALONE SPELL ANYTHING....SORRY,IT SHALL NOT:cool: HAPPEN AGAIN

ejenner
17th March 2007, 06:13 AM
Ok - well please see that it doesn't happen again... quality control and all that..!

BIRDIEMANGO
17th March 2007, 06:37 AM
Some Pictures Of My Set-up In The Rally Car



Notice The Original Boost Gauge On The Dash........just To Keep 'em Guessing...

sonett1
17th March 2007, 06:54 AM
BIRDIEMANGO POOH STINK HEAD I have a steel fuel injection tank from a 4 door 99 GLE, would that be any good to you?

ejenner
17th March 2007, 07:20 AM
hmm - weight saving brake disks.

Shan
17th March 2007, 08:28 AM
Some Pictures Of My Set-up In The Rally Car



Notice The Original Boost Gauge On The Dash........just To Keep 'em Guessing...

That is simply lovely ! I've been searching the net for pics of a twin Weber/Dellorto setup for the H-engine. Who made the manifold ?

ejenner
17th March 2007, 09:36 AM
didn't Saab do a twin-carb manifold? Maybe I'm remembering something from the B-motor. Yes - just checked the book - they did do a twin-carb for the H-engine. 1979-1980 and 1981-onwards. Something like 108bhp standard output.

Tomarse
17th March 2007, 09:56 AM
didn't Saab do a twin-carb manifold? Maybe I'm remembering something from the B-motor. Yes - just checked the book - they did do a twin-carb for the H-engine. 1979-1980 and 1981-onwards. Something like 108bhp standard output.

there were twin carb b and h engines. VikingSpirit has a twin carb H engine manifold on his 900.

Shan
17th March 2007, 10:04 AM
The B and H engines were available with twin carbs from the factory, but only with Zenith-Stromberg carburettors.

The manifold for the twin Weber / Dellorto setup in that pic above must be aftermarket.... can anyone shed some light ? Did they come from the Saab competitions department ?

BIRDIEMANGO
17th March 2007, 03:04 PM
I Can Tell You By Looking At Pictures Of The Rally 99 Turbo (saab Drilled And Alloy Welded This Manifold To Fit,throttle Plates,and Injectors Further Upstream )that The Manifold Is Identical,so Could Well Be Original Sport&rally Equipment.:d
Other Manifold's Are Still Available...............i Think,by Mangoletsi ?
I Couldn't Be Sure Though.
The Sport&rally Manifold Has Strengthening 'webs' Cast Into The Runners ,to Stop It Snapping In Half Due To The Weight Of The Carbs.
However The Carb Mounting Studs ,do Shear Off At Quite An Alarming Rate,once You Enter The Forest......vibration,metal Fatigue ?

You Need A Bulge In The Bonnet For The Dellorto's, But ,webers ,i Believe Will Fit,if You Bugger About With The Linkage........and As I Have Mentioned Elsewhere, Escort Competition Mounts ,will Fit The 99 Rear Engine Mounts.

The Twin Carb Manifold Fitted To 'b' And 'h' Engines Fitted With Stromberg Carbs Mainly To 'gls' Models In The Uk,is Ok.
But The Carbs Rarely Stay In Tune For Very Long,and Although It Is Better Than The Single Carb Manifold,it Is Quite Restrictive.

I Spent A Long Time Ensuring The Brakes Were Stripped,and That The Fluid Is Changed Every 6 Months.they Are Quite Outstanding........... As Standard,and I Use Standard Saab Pads.....
They Have Never Overheated,or Lost Pedal Pressure, Even Under The Most Demanding Conditions (oulton Park Trackday,it Ate A Set Of Front Pads Over 100 Laps......thats Over 2oo Miles...... All I Had To Do,was To Come In For Re-fuelling.....big Smile,lasted For Weeks)
It Is Quite Possible To Close 100 Yards On A Sierra Cossie Under Braking !!!!!!

BIRDIEMANGO
17th March 2007, 04:03 PM
SONETT,I SHALL HAVE A LOOK NEXT TIME I AM DEVOURING SOME OF YOUR FINEST BOURBON (BISCUITS THAT IS),AND A RATHER NICE EARL GREY,IF YOU DON'T MIND..........:lol:

sonett1
17th March 2007, 04:39 PM
I have two types of twin manifolds, one is from Misab and is with Dave Baker at Puma Racing, he has ported it and matched it to the BV head, he commented on the nice shape of the inlet runners, can't wait to get it all up and running.

BIRDIEMANGO
18th March 2007, 06:37 AM
HERE ARE SOME MORE PICTURES,ONE OF THE OTHER SIDE ON ME RALLY CAR,ENGINE BAY.
THE OTHER'S ARE OF THE WORKS 99T RALLY ENGINE ,LOOK CLOSELY AT THE INLET MANIFOLD SET-UP...............VERY NICE:o

ejenner
18th March 2007, 06:48 AM
I was thinking about making up a manifold for my Carlsson project using flexible hosing like you have on your TB setup.

sonett1
18th March 2007, 06:55 AM
I was thinking about making up a manifold for my Carlsson project using flexible hosing like you have on your TB setup.

Birdies car is on twin dellortos, the TB's in the pic are of the works turbo rally car.

ejenner
18th March 2007, 07:39 AM
sorry - thought he had 7 99's and that was one of them...! guess not.

Pics of my cleaned and painted engine block and my cleaned and painted engine bay. Also showing the bulkhead modification.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/new_engine_006.jpg

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/engine_bay_001.jpg

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/engine_bay_002.jpg

BIRDIEMANGO
18th March 2007, 08:16 AM
SEVEN 99'S ,THREE CLASSIC 900'S AND A 99T WORKS RALLY CAR..............I WISH:o .
NOT ON MY WAGES:o .
I HAVE TO SETTLE FOR ME CLUBMAN'S REPLICA RALLY EMS........(DON'T ASK HOW MUCH THAT CAR HAS COST ME !!!!!!!) CHECK OUT THE UPTURNED SAWN-OFF BATTERY BOX TO ACCOMADATE THE CARBS,HOLES DRIILED IN FOR AIRFLOW,AND THE ALLOY BATHROOM VENTS FROM HOMEBASE,IN THE BONNET FOR COOLING .
AND OF COURSE, SIX OTHER 99'S IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DISREPAIR.

THE PICTURES OF THE 99T MANIFOLDING ARE FROM A STASH OF OLD CAR MAGS I HAVE, ON FEATURES TO DO WITH THE 99T WORKS CARS TO ASSIST IN THE BUILDING OF MY NEW 'STIG' BLACK 99T CLUBMAN REPLICA.
NOBODY WROTE A BOOK ON THE 'TUNING' ASPECTS OF THE 99/900,SO I AM AFRAID APART FROM ASKING SOMEBODY ELSE THEIR EXPERIENCES,AND SPENDING LOTS OF MONEY ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,THIS IS ALL WE HAVE........SAAB PULLED OUT OF RALLYING IN 1980, AND AS SUCH I DON'T THINK ANY DEVELOPMENT WAS PUT INTO THE 'H' TYPE FOR N/A ENGINES,
I.E THE 'B'TYPE IS MUCH SMOOTHER,AND REVS A LOT SWEETER,THE'H'TYPE IS VERY COARSE IN COMPARISON.

WHEN I WENT DOWN TO SEE ANDREW STREET'S 99 RALLY CAR,HE EVEN HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE WATER PUMP DRIVE SHATTERING ONCE YOU GET UP TO AROUND 7000 REVS (B' ENGINE ).THIS IS AFTER REPLACING THE VALVE GEAR TO ALLOW SOME MORE REVS FOR MORE POWER........
THE 99 ENGINE WAS NEVER BUILT FOR REVS,AFTER SAAB GOT HOLD OF THE 16 VALVE UNIT FOR 1976 (WHICH I AM LED TO BELIEVE VOLVO,LOOKED INTO.........BUT THOUGHT 16V WOULD NEVER CATCH ON !) CHANGES IN RULING FOR RALLYING LEFT THEM HIGH AND DRY.BUT BY THIS TIME THEY WERE ALREADY ONTO THE TURBO IDEA,WHICH SUITED THE SAAB ENGINE VERY WELL.....AND REALLY KEPT THE COMPANY GOING,THANK GOD!!!!

Tomarse
18th March 2007, 08:48 AM
have you still got that bit of bulkhead cut-out lying around birdieman?

BIRDIEMANGO
18th March 2007, 08:51 AM
YEP,BUT NOT FOR LONG IT IS GOING INTO MY 99 TURBO.........WHY WOT YOU THINKING:lol:

sonett1
18th March 2007, 10:24 AM
SEVEN 99'S ,THREE CLASSIC 900'S AND A 99T WORKS RALLY CAR..............I WISH:o .
NOT ON MY WAGES:o .
I HAVE TO SETTLE FOR ME CLUBMAN'S REPLICA RALLY EMS........(DON'T ASK HOW MUCH THAT CAR HAS COST ME !!!!!!!) CHECK OUT THE UPTURNED SAWN-OFF BATTERY BOX TO ACCOMADATE THE CARBS,HOLES DRIILED IN FOR AIRFLOW,AND THE ALLOY BATHROOM VENTS FROM HOMEBASE,IN THE BONNET FOR COOLING .
AND OF COURSE, SIX OTHER 99'S IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DISREPAIR.

THE PICTURES OF THE 99T MANIFOLDING ARE FROM A STASH OF OLD CAR MAGS I HAVE, ON FEATURES TO DO WITH THE 99T WORKS CARS TO ASSIST IN THE BUILDING OF MY NEW 'STIG' BLACK 99T CLUBMAN REPLICA.
NOBODY WROTE A BOOK ON THE 'TUNING' ASPECTS OF THE 99/900,SO I AM AFRAID APART FROM ASKING SOMEBODY ELSE THEIR EXPERIENCES,AND SPENDING LOTS OF MONEY ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,THIS IS ALL WE HAVE........SAAB PULLED OUT OF RALLYING IN 1980, AND AS SUCH I DON'T THINK ANY DEVELOPMENT WAS PUT INTO THE 'H' TYPE FOR N/A ENGINES,
I.E THE 'B'TYPE IS MUCH SMOOTHER,AND REVS A LOT SWEETER,THE'H'TYPE IS VERY COARSE IN COMPARISON.

WHEN I WENT DOWN TO SEE ANDREW STREET'S 99 RALLY CAR,HE EVEN HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE WATER PUMP DRIVE SHATTERING ONCE YOU GET UP TO AROUND 7000 REVS (B' ENGINE ).THIS IS AFTER REPLACING THE VALVE GEAR TO ALLOW SOME MORE REVS FOR MORE POWER........
THE 99 ENGINE WAS NEVER BUILT FOR REVS,AFTER SAAB GOT HOLD OF THE 16 VALVE UNIT FOR 1976 (WHICH I AM LED TO BELIEVE VOLVO,LOOKED INTO.........BUT THOUGHT 16V WOULD NEVER CATCH ON !) CHANGES IN RULING FOR RALLYING LEFT THEM HIGH AND DRY.BUT BY THIS TIME THEY WERE ALREADY ONTO THE TURBO IDEA,WHICH SUITED THE SAAB ENGINE VERY WELL.....AND REALLY KEPT THE COMPANY GOING,THANK GOD!!!!

My H series engine in 99 GL is quite smooth, although the 272 reground piper cam and skimmed head are not working in harmony, from a quick glance the cam timing is out by around 4-5 degrees, which is probably contributing to the fact that i don't like this particular set up!
The H and B engines are very similar in design and each should be as smooth as each other, although the pistons on the H engine i am rebuilding for the GL where of different weights, 19g's IIRC was the difference in pistons.

The works first EMS with K-jet realised 170bhp with it's 8 valves, when development of the 16v head for the B series engine was finished it was at around 240 bhp and rpms were at 9000 with good reliability, the bottom end was all standard B series components.

I would be ecstatic if my new H type engine was around 170bhp, this would be a very useful power output from an N/A engine.

Tomarse
18th March 2007, 11:06 AM
YEP,BUT NOT FOR LONG IT IS GOING INTO MY 99 TURBO.........WHY WOT YOU THINKING:lol:

more pics please!, especially from the edges.

I'm about to put a 16v in my 99 as soon as i manage to get some concrete on the drive so that i can move the engine lift!

Shan
18th March 2007, 11:19 AM
HERE ARE SOME MORE PICTURES,ONE OF THE OTHER SIDE ON ME RALLY CAR,ENGINE BAY.
THE OTHER'S ARE OF THE WORKS 99T RALLY ENGINE ,LOOK CLOSELY AT THE INLET MANIFOLD SET-UP...............VERY NICE:o

Are there 4 (!!) throttle body flaps in this picture :

http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7073

sonett1
18th March 2007, 11:35 AM
Are there 4 (!!) throttle body flaps in this picture :

http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7073

Yes there are 4, here are another 4.............

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r310/sonett_01/JenveysandmanifoldLarge.jpg

Shan
18th March 2007, 11:47 AM
Yes there are 4, here are another 4.............


Thanks for that picture. This certainly looks like a different version of the manifold for the twin sidedraught carb / injection setup.

nutcase
18th March 2007, 12:05 PM
For anyone who hasn't seen some detail pics of the rally 99T in the Saab museum:

http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~burenius/rally/

BIRDIEMANGO
18th March 2007, 12:34 PM
PROBLEM IS THOUGH SONETT,I HAVE GONE REALLY AS FAR AS I CAN ,APART FROM PUTTING 45'S ON.
TO GET THE REVS NOW ,IS GOING TO COST ME PERSONALLY FAR AND ABOVE WHAT I AM PREPARED TO PUT INTO IT,FOR WHAT I CAN GET OUT OF IT...........;oops: .........THE FUN FACTOR..
IT MUST HAVE CRIPPLED SAAB ,AFTER SPENDING ALL THAT MONEY, TIME AND EFFORT ON THE 16 VALVE HEAD,TO HAVE TO, EFFECTIVLEY THROW IT IN THE BIN,JUST COS, THEY CHANGED THE RULES.THE POWER MUST COME FROM THAT HEAD,AND WHAT WAS INSIDE IT ?IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR STIG TO FINISH SECOND ON THE RAC BEHIND,ROGER CLARK.......
I WONDER WHAT THE 8 VALVE EMS ENGINE WAS REVVING TO,TO GET THE 170 BHP....AND WHETHER THEY DISPENSED,... WITH THE STANDARD WATERPUMP.
AND I WOULD PUT THOSE THROTTLE BODIES AWAY OFF THE TABLE,THEY MIGHT DISSAPEAR,LOTS OF BURGALRIES AROUND AT THE MOMENT...:lol:

sonett1
18th March 2007, 02:46 PM
PROBLEM IS THOUGH SONETT,I HAVE GONE REALLY AS FAR AS I CAN ,APART FROM PUTTING 45'S ON.
TO GET THE REVS NOW ,IS GOING TO COST ME PERSONALLY FAR AND ABOVE WHAT I AM PREPARED TO PUT INTO IT,FOR WHAT I CAN GET OUT OF IT...........;oops: .........THE FUN FACTOR..
IT MUST HAVE CRIPPLED SAAB ,AFTER SPENDING ALL THAT MONEY, TIME AND EFFORT ON THE 16 VALVE HEAD,TO HAVE TO, EFFECTIVLEY THROW IT IN THE BIN,JUST COS, THEY CHANGED THE RULES.THE POWER MUST COME FROM THAT HEAD,AND WHAT WAS INSIDE IT ?IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR STIG TO FINISH SECOND ON THE RAC BEHIND,ROGER CLARK.......
I WONDER WHAT THE 8 VALVE EMS ENGINE WAS REVVING TO,TO GET THE 170 BHP....AND WHETHER THEY DISPENSED,... WITH THE STANDARD WATERPUMP.
AND I WOULD PUT THOSE THROTTLE BODIES AWAY OFF THE TABLE,THEY MIGHT DISSAPEAR,LOTS OF BURGALRIES AROUND AT THE MOMENT...:lol:

You don't always have to have the engine rev right out to reach it's power potential, it all depends what the engine is used for and who is tuning it, especially the cylinder head and camshaft choice, but either way it's not always cheap, a BVH and matched cam can quite easily cost 800 +, but as the old tuning saying goes, 'how fast do you want to go, how much money have you got?'

ejenner
18th March 2007, 04:52 PM
Thread hijack alert... :lol:

Carry on chaps... interesting reading...!


Block on.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/new_engine_007.jpg

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/new_engine_008.jpg


Really wanted to get the head on today but it got dark and started raining :cry:

Also stuck in some suspension shims. The previous owner set it up without any shims and I believe I would've been getting a bit of positive camber. Noticed how reluctant the car was on roundabouts. Also lots of crazy wheelspin during wet weather acceleration. Wasn't too bad in a straight line with dry conditions but still didn't feel right. Steering was also very easy, even though there's no power steering and a small steering wheel. All signs of dodgy alignment. Something had to be done!

BIRDIEMANGO
18th March 2007, 05:41 PM
SORRY,OLD CHAP;oops: SORT OF GONE OFF THE BEATEN TRACK A LITTLE,IT IS NICE TO SEE THE OLD TIMER COMING ALONG.DID YOU SEE MY REPLY REGARDING YOUR PAINT ?
WAS THERE NO SHIMS AT ALL...........IN THE TOP WISHBONES:o
HOW DID THEY GET A 2.3 ?,PISTONS,SHORT THROW CRANK OR THE HEAD ?

DID HE EVER GET IT ON THE ROLLERS.JUST TO SEE WHAT IS POSSIBLE WITH ALL THE WORK HE DID TO IT......?

NICE PICTURES OF THE 99T,NUTCASE:D


TOMARSE,I HAVE TOOK SOME MORE PICTURES OF THAT SECTION OF BULKHEAD,.........WHEN MY PHONE DECIDES TO SPEAK TO MY COMPUTER AGAIN :evil: ,I WILL LET YOU KNOW..........

ejenner
18th March 2007, 06:11 PM
No shims on the upper wishbones. With all the bolts exposed as they were the thing was crying out for a few shims. The car was going pretty straight as it was but I wasn't happy with the camber settings. Put 5mm in the front and 6mm in the back so the hubs tilt back a touch. Hopefully it will work out ok as I don't fancy trying to get in there when everything is back in place. Don't think it would be impossible - just challenging!

The previous owner didn't rolling-road it as far as I know. Usually the sort of thing that's mentioned as a car is being sold. I'm working flat-out to get the thing ready in time for a Saab rolling-road day on the 31st of March. With the previous setup the car 'felt' faster than a standard T16. I've got a comparison in the standard T16 my dad drives. My dad's car was making something like 165bhp when I had it tested and the 99 felt faster. However, since I bought the car I've fitted bosch -431 injectors, 8v k-jet fuel pump, direct-ignition from the Saab 9000, shiney forge wastegate actuator with a stiff spring, modified camshafts and was running the ECU and RED DI/APC controllers from the Saab 9000 Carlsson. Since then it's gone really, really fast in a very good way for about a minute but then the fuel pressure regulator started giving me grief and the fun was cut-short. The engine was also running with high oil-pressure so I decided to bite-the-bullet and yank it out. The replacement engine has gone back in with resealed gaskets, cleaned out sump and oil-ways, lightened flywheel, ect, ect... I'm expecting good things - but I won't know until I get it all back in one peice and on the dyno. Hurr - another 'dyno-queen' ! But this ain't no ordinary 9000! ;)

I've asked my boss for a day off tomorrow and he's cleared it so I'll be in the garage preparing the replacement cylinder head and then outside and bolting it down. Hopefully I'll get something going tomorrow evening! We'll see how it goes.

The only 2.3 bit on the original setup was the cam-cover. But the head I'm putting on will be a 2.3 head but I'm going to combine that with a 2.0 cam-cover so people don't keep asking questions! :lol: You're not the first one!

philb
18th March 2007, 07:07 PM
PROBLEM IS THOUGH SONETT,I HAVE GONE REALLY AS FAR AS I CAN ,APART FROM PUTTING 45'S ON.
TO GET THE REVS NOW ,IS GOING TO COST ME PERSONALLY FAR AND ABOVE WHAT I AM PREPARED TO PUT INTO IT,FOR WHAT I CAN GET OUT OF IT...........;oops: .........THE FUN FACTOR..
IT MUST HAVE CRIPPLED SAAB ,AFTER SPENDING ALL THAT MONEY, TIME AND EFFORT ON THE 16 VALVE HEAD,TO HAVE TO, EFFECTIVLEY THROW IT IN THE BIN,JUST COS, THEY CHANGED THE RULES.THE POWER MUST COME FROM THAT HEAD,AND WHAT WAS INSIDE IT ?IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR STIG TO FINISH SECOND ON THE RAC BEHIND,ROGER CLARK.......
I WONDER WHAT THE 8 VALVE EMS ENGINE WAS REVVING TO,TO GET THE 170 BHP....AND WHETHER THEY DISPENSED,... WITH THE STANDARD WATERPUMP.
AND I WOULD PUT THOSE THROTTLE BODIES AWAY OFF THE TABLE,THEY MIGHT DISSAPEAR,LOTS OF BURGALRIES AROUND AT THE MOMENT...:lol:

Why not go for a 16v yourself? An N/A project using the T7 head would be interesting. I know you have a budget, but surely you'd be able to get to near enough 200hp without spending crazy money.

BIRDIEMANGO
18th March 2007, 08:16 PM
EJENNER ,DO YOU THINK I SHOULD BUGGER OFF AND START A NEW POST,THREAD,WALLPAPER ,PAINTING OR WHATEVER THE HELL IT IS CALLED ?
AND WHY WON'T MY PHONE SEND PICTURES ,VIA BLUETOOTH,BLOODY TECHNOLOGY,MAYBE I SHOULD TAKE IT TO HALFORDS........:lol:

HELLO PHIL,I HAVE GONE INTO THE POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO THEORY ON UKS,HAVE A GANDER,'SAAB 99/900 IN MOTORSPORT'
YES,I COULD USE THE N/A 16V HEAD,BUT TO GET ONE FLOWED AND PORTED WILL COST AROUND 600 QUID.....(WOT SAY YOU SONETT ?)QUITE A FEW LADS HAVE DONE IT,AND FABRICATED A MANIFOLD FOR THE WEBERS.
THEN YOU HAVE TWO CAMS TO BUY( HOW MUCH ARE THEY),AND THEN WITH 200 BHP IT WILL DEFINITLEY NEED A DIFF............ANOTHER 600
THEN IT WILL NEED BIGGER BRAKES..........THE LIST GOES ON........

I AM ONLY DOING THIS FOR FUN,ANY ACHIEVEMENTS THAT ARE A RESULT OF THAT FUN ,ARE A WELCOME BENEFIT...........

THE RALLY CAR DOES EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN NOW,WITH THE 108.5 BHP @WHEELS........:o
SO THAT IS WHY I HAVE DECIDED TO TRY THE 99T ROUTE,TO SEE IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME DRIVEABILITY..........AND SEE IF IT WILL BE ANY QUICKER.
I ALREADY HAVE ALL THE BITS TO BUILD THE 99 TURBO,BUT IT WILL BE HEAVIER .
FIGURES IN 1978 STATE THAT THE 99T WAS SOME 180 KG HEAVIER THAN THE WORKS MK 2 ESCORT WHICH WEIGHED 970 KG(JUST FOUND SOME FIGURES FOR THE ESCORT RALLIED BY THE SIMMONITE SISTERS IN EARLY 1990'S AND THAT WEIGHED 960 KG)
I AM HOPING TO RETURN 200 BHP FROM THE 99T
THE WORKS 99'T' WAS REALLY A VICTIM OF IT'S OWN SUCCESS,THE EVER HIGHER BHP FIGURES RESULTED IN BROKEN GEARBOXES AND DRIVESHAFTS, ''TO FINISH FIRST,FIRST YOU HAVE TO FINISH''


HOWEVER ,I DO THINK EJENNER'S 99 IS GOING TO BE RATHER QUICK........
IT WOULD BE INTRESTING TO WEIGH EJENNER'S 'HYBRID' 99 AGAINST MY RALLY 99,TO SEE HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE THERE IS.......TURBO VERSUS CARBS.........FIGURES FOR THE 3 DOOR WORKS 99 WERE 1150 KG,THE 2 DOOR WAS STATED TO BE 40 KG LIGHTER..;oops: ANYONE GOT A WEIGHBRIDGE........:suprised;

philb
18th March 2007, 09:59 PM
HELLO PHIL,I HAVE GONE INTO THE POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO THEORY ON UKS,HAVE A GANDER,'SAAB 99/900 IN MOTORSPORT'
YES,I COULD USE THE N/A 16V HEAD,BUT TO GET ONE FLOWED AND PORTED WILL COST AROUND 600 QUID.....(WOT SAY YOU SONETT ?)QUITE A FEW LADS HAVE DONE IT,AND FABRICATED A MANIFOLD FOR THE WEBERS.
THEN YOU HAVE TWO CAMS TO BUY( HOW MUCH ARE THEY),AND THEN WITH 200 BHP IT WILL DEFINITLEY NEED A DIFF............ANOTHER 600
THEN IT WILL NEED BIGGER BRAKES..........THE LIST GOES ON........


Hey, I never said to run out and spend 600 quid on the head straight away. Just see what its like as standard. The T7 head flows far better than the 2.0 or 2.3 900 and 9000 heads. Is it really going to make the power to weight ratio much worse? As for cams, see what the standard cams will do, also you can get scrap c900/9k heads cheap and try different combination. I just think its a better starting point than any of the 8v heads. This is, after all, why saab put a 16v head on the 99 rally car.
If you put money into flowing/porting it down the line, you'll get more bang for buck then also. Brakes? Put on the brakes from a late 9k. A diff would be handy alright.

ejenner
19th March 2007, 06:43 PM
Well, what a day that's been! Seems there are always so many more things to do than you expect. I started cleaning up the cylinder head first thing this morning. Was cleaning off the old headgasket and noticed chatter marks where the gasket had been flapping around. There was also a bit of pitting near the back-end. No choice but to get it skimmed. Got the valve stem seals done at the same time. Got the head back at about 4pm and started building it up. Got the head on and decided my target would be to close up all the holes into the block. Still left to do: fit turbo and pipework, fit coolant hoses, reconnect wiring loom connectors, fit radiator, fit new radiator fan as didn't previously have one, fit crank pulley and belt, fill oil and coolant, reconnect oil pressure gauge, reinstall intercooler and clean-up.


Here's the latest snap.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/new_engine_009.jpg

ejenner
24th March 2007, 06:53 PM
Well it's been pretty slow going today. I've just been working through the final jobs. Everything is back in the car now. I've added in the cooling fan in front of the radiator and a thermo-switch in the radiator/cylinder-head hose. Had good fun testing the different types of thermo-switches to see which type would be best for what I needed. I can't reconnect my oil pressure gauge as I dropped part of the fitting into an unknown part of the engine bay. For the moment I've stuck in a normal pressure switch to plug the hole in the filter housing.

The fluids are back in the engine and it's pretty much ready to go. The only thing that's holding me up now is the electrical system. I've got power to everything except the ignition circuit. The connectors at the fuse box are a bit flakey and the wires fell off the fuel pump relay. I had a quick go at hooking them up but it was getting a bit dark and rainy so I decided to give up for the day. I should get it running tomorrow morning. I might replace the fuse box at some point.

ejenner
24th March 2007, 07:00 PM
anyone got a weighbridge

I normally take the car down the council waste disposal site and stick it on their weighbridge. Then I go over to where they keep the empty gas cylinders to see if they've got cylinders that would be good for filling up with nitrous oxide.

Tomarse
24th March 2007, 08:53 PM
I can't reconnect my oil pressure gauge as I dropped part of the fitting into an unknown part of the engine bay. For the moment I've stuck in a normal pressure switch to plug the hole in the filter housing.


it is probably sitting on that little cross member that goes under the engine that has the raised edges. That seems to attract any tools of bolts you drop and it can be a pain to get them out!

birdie - i use my local scrappies for weighbridges. One charges 4 and gives you a cert (or take down a load of scrap metal in the car and they will weigh you before and after unloading so they can pay you for it and you get a reciept with the numbers on!), and one has said i can weigh my car for free if i ask nicely though i havent had time to go back there yet!

ShadowWorks
24th March 2007, 10:05 PM
one has said i can weigh my car for free if i ask nicely though i havent had time to go back there yet!

LOL, what did your Saab weigh in at T? I was 1260Kg coming out and 1720Kg before I went in:o

ejenner
25th March 2007, 03:48 AM
460kg of rubbish! didn't you know it's illegal to dump depleted unranium at the local waste disposal site. It should be properly disposed of.

Tomarse
25th March 2007, 05:29 AM
that is an impressive amount of weight!

Ive not been down in the saab yet, only in the landies..

I did weigh in a 2 door 99 chassis though and that was only a touch over 500kg! (that it lots of rust and no bits atall left on it other than the plastic heater box!)

ejenner
25th March 2007, 05:48 PM
Wohhoooo... got it started, let it warm up and then took it for a quick spin around the block. There are some problems though - I'd hardly want to drive it any distance as it is. The first problem is a hangover from yesterday. Despite my best efforts with the original wiring I couldn't make any sense of it. I decided to by-pass the original stuff and wire in some new relays for the fuel injection and the fuel pump. Everything was going well up until the point where I thought I'd got everything hooked up and tried to start it. The fuel pump wasn't running, I had no power to the air-mass-meter and no power to most of the ECU pins. On investigation I realised the relays I'd wired up were not working. :x

As I was keen to get the thing started (to make sure the engine was working) I by-passed the new relays and connected everything direct to the power. As soon as I did this the car fired right up on the first crank. No messing about! Right now none of the power connections carry fuses and lots of things are hanging free where I've taken out the screws to get to stuff.

The other problem is that the brand-new oil seal on the cam-cover is leaking lots of oil. I know the manual says to apply some liquid sealant but I thought that having clean/dry surfaces and with a brand new seal I might get away without any sealant. It seems I was wrong about that. Even on my short journey around the block the car was filling up with smoke and when I got back to the house and opened the bonnet the hot oil sitting on the manifold caught light and I had a little fire! It's not as bad as it sounds though - I was able to blow it out and there was an obvious cause which I can eaisly fix. Quite ammusing though - it's the first time I've started a fire in an engine bay!

I'm going to put in an hour or two during the week because I want to take it to the rolling road on Saturday and it must be working by then!

I'll keep you all updated!

ejenner
25th March 2007, 06:12 PM
Forgot to mention, whilst battling with the smoke inside the car I did happen to notice how much better the steering was feeling! I'm pleased with the new settings although I will want to get an alignment check done on it. Adjusting the camber and castor has probably had an effect on the toe and I've not adjusted that so it does need checking + doesn't feel perfect yet.

Matthew
25th March 2007, 06:14 PM
Experiences with cam cover gaskets do seem to vary. I've had luck without sealant, other times the gasket's leaked.

On my 900 I think I'm going to follow the instructions and apply Loctite 518 to the moons and corner above the distributor. By the time I have it back together I won't want to be taking stuff apart again.

ejenner
25th March 2007, 06:25 PM
Although, of course, on my car we can subsitute the word 'distributor' for the word 'plug' as I don't have any of that old rubbish anymore! :cheesy:

ShadowWorks
25th March 2007, 07:27 PM
I know this may sound silly but I torque the cam cover bolts in an order similar to a head, I think this does stop the cover from twisting some, the round shape of the gasket is not the best shape for a flat surface, the gasket should be square but hell using some 518 is fine.

Infact you can throw the gasket away and squeeze in a highly moduls silicone in a decent size bead, like a 5mm bead and this is actually better than the gasket used by Saab, you wl have to leave it for 45 minutes and let the skin cure so it does not burst and fall into the cams.

Get some pictures up;)

Matthew
25th March 2007, 08:15 PM
I know this may sound silly but I torque the cam cover bolts in an order similar to a head
Then we're both silly! There's no published torquing order for the cam cover bolts, but it seemed to me sensible to mirror the head's pattern.

ejenner
26th March 2007, 04:39 PM
Ok. Cam cover is properly sealed now. But I've found another problem. I believe I've got the valve timing set incorrectly. I always try to get this right but so often I fail! Of course to get it basically right you just put all the marks at TDC, pop the chain on and then slowly rotate by hand just to make sure the valves aren't going to smash off the pistons. But as I've proven to myself on many occasions it is possible to get it wrong!

I've changed my mind about the fuel relays. I'm quite happy with the way things are working at the moment. What I'll do is keep the setup the same as it is but just tidy it up and add in some fuses. I can save that fuel-relay headache for another day.

Also of note, the cooling fan kicked in for the first time today. It hasn't had one of those before. This is good but not all the way there yet. The cooling fan can maintain the temperature at about 2/3 on the temp gauge but really I'd like to replicate the performance of the cooling system on the c900. On the real T16 the fan will cut in and drop the temperature, when the temperature drops the fan will switch off again. So if I'd just been hacking along on a hot summers day (and I believe we're expecting a few of those soon!) and come to a standstill (for whatever reason) I'd imagine the cooling fan might not be man enough to maintain a constant temperature like it was able to this evening. I had to buy a small fan because I needed it to fit in front of the radiator. If you put your hand in front of it you can feel a blast of warm air coming from the area where the fan is - but I think I'm going to need a second. I've got room for one.

Matthew
26th March 2007, 05:02 PM
I've been thinking about a more intelligent controller for the radiator fans, to pre-empt a ise in engine temperature. Something which factors in ambient air temperature and vehicle speed.

For example, if the car was trundling along at 25MPH, but the ambient air temperature was low, then the fan wouldn't necessarily switch on. However, if it's 40 degrees C on the tarmac then maybe the radator fan should switch on at anything under 40MPH vehicle speed.

I believe I've got the valve timing set incorrectly. I always try to get this right but so often I fail!
Have you got the cam sprocket marks perpendicular to the top face of the head? That always works for me...

ejenner
26th March 2007, 05:08 PM
But then where do you put the TDC mark on the flywheel? The problem I have is that it's so easy to get it one tooth out of alignment with the valve springs pushing the cams around and the marks not being clearly visible.

Matthew
26th March 2007, 07:21 PM
Flywheel at zero deg, cam sprockets perpendicular, then look at the marks on the cam caps - in that order. You'll notice the cam marks don't line up, hence off by one tooth.
Set the engine on #1 cylinder by aligning the timing mark on the flywheel with the line on the black plastic clutch/tranny cover at 0 degrees.

Look at the cams, they have a pointer cast into their first bearing caps and a mark on the raised edge of the cam where it meets the gear. The mark should align pretty close to the pointer on the cam bearing, but it can be off a bit. Instead of using these marks to set the engine in time, we use the marks on the cam gears/sprockets.

When correctly aligned, they are perpendicular to the head, at 12 o'clock. Using these marks to time the cams is less error prone than using the marks on the cams themselves.

ShadowWorks
26th March 2007, 07:37 PM
aFlywheel at zero deg, cam sprockets perpendicular, then look at the marks on the cam caps - in that order. You'll notice the cam marks don't line up, hence off by one tooth.

Let me get this down so a 5 year old could understand it:lol:

The cam sprockets or cams have marks on them that will match with TDC on the flywheel?

If your one tooth off on the cam sprocket how far off would your timing be in degrees on the flywheel?

It's not possible for the chain to jump right, no matter how old it is?

What your suggesting Matthew for the fan is a very clever idea, it would need a simple infrared or heat sensor pointing at the ground and a small fan to measure wind speed, a tiny one will do, this should be enough information to trigger the cooling fans in the situation your talking about.

Matthew
26th March 2007, 08:28 PM
There is a mark cast into the top of each cam bearing cap, and also a pointer cast into the cam. Those two are supposed to line up when the flywheel's at zero deg TDC. However, they don't always.

On the cam sprockets is embossed a short straight radial line. With the flywheel at zero deg, move the cams so that line is perpndicular to the top face of the cylinder head.

When the cap sprocket line is perp, and the flywheel's at zero deg, then look at the cams. The two marks (cam cap and cam) may line up, but often they're out a bit.

So, on a correctly timed engine, with the flywheel at zero deg the sprocket marks should be perpendicular to the top of the head (providing the cam isn't 180 deg out - remember the cams turn once for every two crank revolutions).

If you set up the timing by flywheel and cam cap/cam marks then the timing can be off by a tooth. Aligning by flywheel and cam/cap marks seems to be more accurate.

A new chain on worn sprockets could jump. Did you ever it a new chain to a push bike, only to find it slips?

If the chain did slip, I don't know by how many degrees the timing would be affected. One tooth isn't enough to make the pistons hit the valves.

BIRDIEMANGO
26th March 2007, 08:31 PM
I had a little fire! It's not as bad as it sounds though - I was able to blow it out and there was an obvious cause which I can eaisly fix. Quite ammusing though - it's the first time I've started a fire in an engine bay


IT IS SOMETHING YOU GET USED TO WITH WEBER'S OR DELLORTO'S...........THEY HAVE AN ANNOYING HABIT OF IGNITING AT TIMES.I WILL TRY AND GET SOME PICTURES UP

AND CARRY A FIRE EXTUINGSHER...............MAKE SURE IT WORKS FIRST;oops: UNLESS IT'S INSURED OF COURSE,AND THEN YOU CAN LET IT BURN ,BABY ,BURN......:cheesy:

philb
27th March 2007, 06:34 AM
I had to buy a small fan because I needed it to fit in front of the radiator. If you put your hand in front of it you can feel a blast of warm air coming from the area where the fan is - but I think I'm going to need a second. I've got room for one.

Does this mean the fan is blowing forwards? If so, turn it around. If not, ignore this post :)

ShadowWorks
27th March 2007, 09:42 PM
You Webers catch fire! thats a bit crazy man:lol:

If the fan is blowing air forward he could just reverse the wires;)

Its better to have air going through the front of radiator into the engine bay, the warm air in the engine is not as good as the colder outside air, well we hope anyway.

I just though of something, if the chain could jump a tooth, this could not be corrected by the distributors timing right? because the valves timing would be out right so power would be sapped maybe?

ejenner
1st April 2007, 10:13 AM
When you buy the fans you get a choice of pulling or pushing fans. I've got two fans installed now and they're both the pulling type and they're both installed in front of the radiator. You can just about see something through the grille.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/cooling_fan_001.jpg



Here's the most recent engine bay pic

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/new_engine_010.jpg


You can see the front of the DI cassette does not quite fit under the bonnet. I've no plans to do anything about this. Both bits are damaged now so cutting something out of the bonnet or off the end of the DI cassette isn't going to help.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/di_99_bonnet_001.jpg

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/di_99_bonnet_002.jpg



Took the car to the rolling road yesterday. There and back must have been about 200 miles and the car got there and back ok. I've got a bit of oil leaking around the head-gasket. So I'll have to take the head off again at some point. I don't feel any urgent rush to do that though.

Here's the graph. I got 301.3 lb/ft of torque and 168 bhp. Basically I'm putting in way more fuel than I need and it's killing the power. Nice torque figure though!

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/March07RRD.jpg


Here's a video of the car on the rolling road. First you see fuel spraying out the exhaust, then you see black smoke when it hits the rev-limiter and then you see blue smoke as it spins down again.

http://www.zen38225.zen.co.uk/smokin.wmv

Si
2nd April 2007, 06:15 PM
Does it feel like it's got 300ft/lbs on torque on the road? That is a very high figure, stock T16's make about 200ft/lb don't they?

philb
2nd April 2007, 06:19 PM
One of the RR's recently printed lb/ft instead of nm, are you sure about that? The car is going to feel way quicker than stock anyway because of the lighter weight. The 168hp figure is decent considering it shows it as being at 3200 rpm...

Matthew
2nd April 2007, 07:49 PM
Does it feel like it's got 300ft/lbs on torque on the road? That is a very high figure, stock T16's make about 200ft/lb don't they?
201ft/lb as stock for non-catalyst T16.

Si
2nd April 2007, 07:54 PM
The rpm seems a bit iffy, the peak HP should be about 5,250 - 5,500 and tailing off after that.
I don't get how they ofset the roller speed against gear ratio's, they use 4th gear although 5th's ratio is closer to 1:1.

They don't set the computer up for a specific car do they, but even then you could have different primary drives in:confused: , i'm lost!

ejenner
3rd April 2007, 02:50 AM
Si, they calculate the transmission loss by running the car up the rev range for the power run and then letting it spin-down afterwards. A complete power-run includes a blast up to the limiter and then a cost back down to idle again. That's why it's impossible to get a measurement from an automatic. The torque converter disconnects the gearbox from the engine if there's no power coming out so you can't do the spin-down after the power stroke. Some auto's lock the torque converter but most of them don't have that feature.

The difference between my peak torque and peak power figures is very easy to explain. As the engine recieves it's first dose of additional air the air/fuel ratio is just right for the engine to use all of the boost. Once it gets higher up the rev range there is way too much fuel getting in and that is 'drowning' the power. You can see how much raw fuel is actually getting straight through and out the tail-pipes if you watch the video. It's squirting it straight out.

I've changed the injectors for smaller ones and now and the car feels netured. But I've got a few different combinations to try. Fuel pressure is currently set at 3.0bar. That might not be high enough.

ShadowWorks
3rd April 2007, 04:39 AM
Once it gets higher up the rev range there is way too much fuel getting in and that is 'drowning' the power. You can see how much raw fuel is actually getting straight through and out the tail-pipes if you watch the video. It's squirting it straight out.

Lets see this video ;)

Saab-Daniel
3rd April 2007, 05:16 AM
Lets see this video ;)

Then have a look at page 9, just under the dyno-graph... :cheesy:
Daniel

ejenner
3rd April 2007, 05:17 AM
For those of you who missed the link above - here it is again: http://www.zen38225.zen.co.uk/smokin.wmv (http://www.zen38225.zen.co.uk/smokin.wmv) ;)

I quite like the video despite the funny result I got. But it clearly demonstrates the issue so it's worth watching. You can have too much fuel sometimes!

Saab-Daniel
3rd April 2007, 05:46 AM
Ejenner, that can't really be fuel now, can it? That would produce flames instead of fluids, the turbo it HOT and the exhaust too, fuel shouldn't be able to travel through the exhaust system like that, no matter how much you put through it... If not burning, then it should at least be in fumes, and again, that would burn...
Daniel.

sonett1
3rd April 2007, 06:07 AM
Ejenner, did you get a figure from the RR at the wheels?

ejenner
3rd April 2007, 06:14 AM
That's what someone else said on the day. Said it was water and blamed it on condensation. But I'm pretty sure it's fuel. If it's not fuel then it's the results of running too rich because it goes away if you turn down the fuel pressure.

Saab-Daniel
3rd April 2007, 06:50 AM
Excess fuel will generate smoke, to the best of my ability, I can't see it to be fuel... Either way, you are running rich, so figuring that out will help you a lot, powerwise...
Daniel.

ejenner
3rd April 2007, 07:10 AM
Ejenner, did you get a figure from the RR at the wheels?

It's the figure from the graph. I don't actaully know if that is the flywheel figure or the wheels figure? I'm pretty sure the normal procedure on a RR shoot-out day is to print out the flywheel figure - it's the higher one!

But I'm prepared to be corrected on that!

sonett1
3rd April 2007, 08:37 AM
It looks like it's the flywheel figure, but from my point of view the figure at the wheels is more meaningful because that is what is beaing measured, the fly figure is an adjustment of the wheel figure and we don't know how much this has been adjusted by or more importantly how.

Si
3rd April 2007, 09:13 AM
NBells graph looks OK for a T16 so i guess the machine was reletively accurate, that is definitely a mountain of torque your producing:o , have you got another gearbox lined up ready to go in:lol: .


What tuning have you done to the engine apart from DI + APC?

Matthew
3rd April 2007, 09:24 AM
Why not revert the engine back to standard spec, as a baseline and begin from there. Use the stock injectors and FPR for a DI 9000.

I think without a wideband, tuning is just stumbling around in the dark!

ejenner
3rd April 2007, 11:32 AM
nonsense Matthew. we upgrade the other bits!

important to remember that the good torque figure means nothing if it's not followed by a good bhp figure! Torque gives you the initial hit but you can see on the graph that it's not carrying right through to the higher RPM's.

Hopefully the gearbox will be ok. I've not broken one before and I'm hoping my smooth driving will keep the box in one peice! I know how to break one if I want to, but obviously that's not what I want!

Sonett1 - I'm not terribly worried about the figures. What I like about the rolling road is the oppertunity to analyse the car in a controlled enviorment. Getting the peak figures is just a bit of fun.

ShadowWorks
3rd April 2007, 11:56 AM
Thats not fuel thank God;) that is just water that builds up in the back box and tail pipe, I'm sure we all get that when there is enough water in the air and its cold, maybe the rich fuel condition makes water vapour accumulate in the exhaust pipe?

The only way for fuel to get into your exhaust pipe is if the injectors are firing on the exhaust stroke and your spark plugs dont fire and even then I think the fuel would flash because of all the heat in the mannifold.

Maybe if your injectors were made by Karcher:lol:

Si
3rd April 2007, 12:14 PM
If you can keep that torque upto 5,252rpm you'll be pushing 300bhp!



Si, they calculate the transmission loss by running the car up the rev range for the power run and then letting it spin-down afterwards. A complete power-run includes a blast up to the limiter and then a cost back down to idle again. That's why it's impossible to get a measurement from an automatic. The torque converter disconnects the gearbox from the engine if there's no power coming out so you can't do the spin-down after the power stroke. Some auto's lock the torque converter but most of them don't have that feature.

That's not the bit that confuses me, they don't connect anything to the engine to get the rpm, i don;t know what the exact ratio's are but say in 4th your engine will be turning 1.2 times for one turn of the wheels, then you have the ratio of the wheels to rollers to consider, just don't get how they can give you a rpm range which matches the engine. They are measuring torque then applying a formula to get BHP, the formual is dependant on rpm so without the exact rpm of the engine BHP figures are always going to be out.

sonett1
3rd April 2007, 01:00 PM
Sonett1 - I'm not terribly worried about the figures. What I like about the rolling road is the oppertunity to analyse the car in a controlled enviorment. Getting the peak figures is just a bit of fun.

I understand what you are trying to achieve, but i don't think the RR operator has helped, from the video clip there is no WBO sensor on the exhaust pipe, if this would have been present you would have known if the liquid coming from the pipe was water or fuel and also the condition of the fuelling. I would be worried about the figures, i would want to know a good ball park figure of the wheels bhp, this unfortunately is the hard part, finding a good RR WITH someone who knows what they are doing with it, i would be even more critical of the figures because this is an engine with some mods and you have no real baseline to establish your future modifications.
As for a controlled environment, i would say there is no real difference from tuning on the rollers or on the road in terms general running, if anything the rollers can be less controlled if your cooling system is a bit on the weak side, i know several people that map their cars while they have someone else driving, the rollers are a good tool for mapping without having to go on the road and can be good for that final map trim.
I don't want to sound as if i am dumbing you down, much the opposite, i am just putting across my experiences.

ShadowWorks
3rd April 2007, 07:57 PM
[QUOTE=sonett1there is no WBO sensor on the exhaust pipe, if this would have been present you would have known if the liquid coming from the pipe was water or fuel and also the condition of the fuelling.
[/QUOTE]

Is the WBO sensor the same probe thats used on MOT that test emissions?

If they have no WBO sensor how can they tell you if your running rich or lean?

Si
3rd April 2007, 08:12 PM
They test your CO2 emmisions, not the a/f ratio, although the a/f ratio will govern the CO2 emmisions.

sonett1
4th April 2007, 03:48 AM
Is the WBO sensor the same probe thats used on MOT that test emissions?

If they have no WBO sensor how can they tell you if your running rich or lean?

No not really, the one at the MOT station just takes a snap shot sample of your CO/HC etc, a proper WBO sensor will take a continuous measurement.

Without a WBO sensor you will not know what your fuelling is like at different loads/WOT etc.

ejenner
4th April 2007, 03:53 AM
Nobody had anything good to say about the operators at this RR day. We asked them 5 times for lambda before we got a straight answer! Basically, although not admitting to it, it seems they didn't want to do any diagnostics because that's the sort of thing they charge extra for. There was under-the-breath muttering about how this wasn't a diagnositics session. But judging by their performance and some of the things they said I reckon they need a bit of training before I'd let them advise me!

By contrast. When we went to Thorrock last year the guys did everything for us. They had a single roller, their figures were believable (we all thought Regal's figures were too high) At Thorrock they did lambda and each run was followed by 20 minutes of discussion about how to get a better performance from the car. They even drilled out another fuel jet for me and let me go back on the rollers again. (and they got the jet-size absoutly spot on!)

Si - sometimes they can get the RPM by comparing the reading on the rev counter against what the dyno is reading and adjust it. Other times they stick a probe into your ignition system and get a reading like that.

I doubt a little Garrett T3 would get as far as 300bhp. It'll be well out of puff by then. I've also decided the turbo I have is causing the blue smoke you see in the video at idle. I've got a couple of spares so I'll just try one of my other ones.

Saab-Daniel
4th April 2007, 05:59 AM
Yep, they calibrate the rollers before doing the run, so they can get the correct rpm...
About the turbo, you might be right, it does smoke a bit at idle... Has it started to wizzle yet?
Daniel.

ejenner
4th April 2007, 07:31 AM
The turbo's always wizzled ever since I've had the car. I'm pretty sure it's always smoked as well! Although I can't remember.

ejenner
4th April 2007, 04:38 PM
Alrighty, we're going chargecooled! I've got a radiator from a MINI, an 8" fan to sit on the back of that, a chargecooler core, an electric pump and a few bits of hose. Only thing I'm missing now is the coolant resrvoir - think I've got an old c900 one I could use for that. I'm doing this because the c900 intercooler is causing a restriction in the intake and getting quickly heatsoaked. The car's actually going really well at the moment, but I'm keen to finish it off and get it perfect. Which means there's still loads to do!

Saab-Daniel
4th April 2007, 05:40 PM
Very nice emmett, seems like you are keeping quite busy! :D
I just did a few runs with MS logging today, my China-IC (ebay-looking unit) is acturally doing quite well, with 9 degrees outside, my highest reported temperature was around 27 degrees (all in celcius) which I find very nice indeed, as normal cruise-temp is around 15-17 degrees at this outside temp. The car was WELL warm, and was sitting idling while I was fidling a bit with the spark-control (coolant rose to 87 degrees inside the head while standing still idling) which also affected the IC, of course.
What I'm saying with the ramble above, is yes, get the heatsoaking sorted, it means the world to performance!
Daniel.

ejenner
6th April 2007, 06:36 PM
Here's a pic of what the car looks like right now. The only thing you can see which is different from when I bought it is that I've changed the wheels. But there's been a lot of work under the skin. I had it washed a few days ago and the kind men at the hand-car-wash did a really decent job on the wheels!

I'm driving it quite hard now as I want to make sure it's not too fragile. It could break again soon but it's holding up for the moment! ;)


I took the photo this morning.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/april_2007.jpg

Matthew
6th April 2007, 07:32 PM
Looks quite mean on the black steelies :cool: Looks like you have some serious tyres on there.

BIRDIEMANGO
6th April 2007, 08:08 PM
BEFORE I COULD AFFORD TO SMASH UP MINILITES,I TOO CHOSE TO USE 'STEELIES' BECAUSE
1.THEY ARE PLENFTIFUL IN SUPPLY
2.YOU CAN BEND ONE AND KEEP GOING (ALLOYS CRACK)

CAR IS LOOKIN' GOOD THERE,WOT ARE THE TYRE'S ? HAVE U GOT 'SWIVEL' SPRING SEATS ON IT,ON THE TOP WISHBONES ?

OUR KID USE'S YOKOHAMA A008 ON THE MINI,HE CAN GET FOUR DELIVERED FOR 130 QUID,FOR THE 10 INCH MINILITES..........HOWEVER FOR 15 INCH ON THE SAAB,THE PRICE SOARS TO 100 QUID PER TYRE..........TOO BLOODY DEAR,I AM AFRAID.......:roll:
SOME OF THE LADS SPRINTING THE MINI'S USE 'HOOSIER 'FULL SLICKS WHICH ARE 250 QUID EACH,THAT IS A GRANDSWORTH OF TYRES..........
PERSONALLY,I WILL STICK TO ME COLWAY 'CUT' SLICKS, AT 60 QUID PER TYRE UNLESS ANYONE CAN GET ANYTHING CHEAPER:o

ejenner
7th April 2007, 03:59 AM
the tyres are toyo-888. I've not managed to push the car hard enough to lose grip yet! that's how good they are...! :cheesy: Just means when I do loose it I'm going to be doing one hell of a speed! I don't need a limited slip diff either. No wheelspin! I had nankangs on before but they were part worn and one of them kept going flat and refused to accept any air after the 5th re-inflation. The toyo's cost the same as any other premium tyre of that size i.e. 100 a corner and it's the most expensive thing the car has had! No other item cost even as much as 1 tyre! I could've fitted michilens but I'm not expecting to need 20,000 miles worth of life out of these tyres!

ejenner
7th April 2007, 04:07 AM
Sorry birdie - keep forgetting to answer your suspension questions.. I've not done anything with the suspension except to adjust the alignment.

The existing setup includes 'all round gas shocks' 're-tempered' springs and 'double front shocks - mainly to help with the rebound' - and that's all I know about the suspension. I reckon it could do with a bit of work but I don't feel like I need to tackle it urgently, it's alright for the moment.

ejenner
9th April 2007, 04:35 PM
Turbo was smoking so I changed that this morning. Took it for a drive down Kent and generated two intake leaks on separate occasions. First time I blew off the compressor output hose and the second time it was a breather on the manifold. Both easily fixed. Edit: second turbo is also smoking now!

I'm getting a funny tugging from the front nearside wheel as I take right-hand bends. Not good really, when I really want to hammer it into the corners at Castle Coombe it's going to be doing that all the time. I'll have to jack it up and see if I can work out what's going wrong. I can't see any rubbing on the tyre so I don't think it's catching. I'm guessing there's a badly worn bush or ball-joint somewhere.

Matthew
10th April 2007, 06:53 AM
Wheel bearing?

ejenner
10th April 2007, 04:28 PM
Don't wheel bearings normally make a humming noise as you drive along with the noise changing in pitch according to speed?

I reckon it's more likely a bush, ball-joint or the tyre rubbing on the wheel-arch. Don't know which yet, but it's quite annoying!



The chargecooler arrived today!

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/chargecooler_001.jpg

I have a radiator from a MINI to cool the water with. There's also a fan to go on the back of the radiator.


A shot looking down into one of the ports on the chargecooler

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/chargecooler_002.jpg



This is where the water goes in.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/chargecooler_003.jpg

Matthew
10th April 2007, 05:22 PM
Looks like a fairly serious bit of kit :o

Which pump will you use?

Yes, wheel bearings do usually rumble on corners. I did wonder though if a very badly worn bearing would cause the steering to be affected in corners. Probably not.

jetman
10th April 2007, 05:33 PM
I doubt it. I've drove one almost to disintegration and all it did was make more and more noise.

ejenner
10th April 2007, 06:04 PM
Looks like a fairly serious bit of kit

Much cheeper than the abbotts kit as well!

Si
10th April 2007, 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew
Looks like a fairly serious bit of kit



Much cheeper than the abbotts kit as well! Don't they use those to cool nuclear reactors:cheesy:

ejenner
10th April 2007, 06:11 PM
I've got a small Davies Craige electric pump move the water around.

Matthew
10th April 2007, 07:14 PM
Much cheeper than the abbotts kit as well!
Isn't everything? :lol:

ejenner
11th April 2007, 02:28 AM
Anyone know of a place to get hose parts online? I'd like to work out what I need and then place 1 order so all the stuff arrives ready to use.

I'll mount the chargecooler in the car, install as much of the pipe work as I can using bits I already have and then I'll need to buy some hose parts. At the very least I will need to expand the diameter of the intake system after the compressor, about 1.75" up to 3" inches at the chargecooler entrance.

Si
11th April 2007, 12:29 PM
www.merlinmotorsport.co.uk (http://www.merlinmotorsport.co.uk) for Samco hoses, they seem to be very competetive prices.

For stainless steel plumbing components try www.bes.ltd.co.uk (http://www.bes.ltd.co.uk)

ejenner
11th April 2007, 12:54 PM
cheers Si...!

Matthew
11th April 2007, 02:11 PM
www.bes.ltd.co.uk (http://www.bes.ltd.co.uk)
http://www.bes.ltd.uk/

BIRDIEMANGO
11th April 2007, 04:25 PM
WITHOUT GOING INTO IT TOO MUCH ,HOW EXACTLY DOES THE THEORY WORK OF THE CHARGECOOLER,WORK ?

I.E WILL IT REPLACE THE INTERCOOLER AND WHERE WILL THE MINI RADIATOR GO,RECIEVE WATER FROM..............BIRDIE (GOT LOAD'S MINI RADIATOR'S LYING ABOUT,AND BROTHER IS AN ALLOY WELDER...:lol: )

ALSO ,AS REGARDS THE 'TUGGING' ON THE STEERING...........HAVE YOU EVER HAD A C.V JOINT COLLAPSE WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING ???
IT IS A MOST UN-NERVING EXPERIENCE.......IT FEELS AS IF YOU ALMOST HAVE LOST ALL STEERING,THE WHEEL TUGGING TO EITHER SIDE.............(AS THE BALL BEARINGS ARE ABOUT TO SEIZE SOLID IN THE CAGE,IN C.V JOINT)IT CAN THEN DISSAPEAR AND RE-APPEAR MILES LATER,CULMINATING IN A CALAMITOUS EXPLOSION OF BALL-BEARINGS AMID CAST STEEL............:cheesy: AND NO DRIVE.........

MIGHT BE WORTH JUST,PEELING BACK THE DRIVESHAFT GAITERS............TO SEE IF ,ANY GREASE LEFT ,OR THE CAGE HAS TURNED BLUE...........EVIDENCE OF OVERHEATING ??????
FORGIVE ME IF YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS;oops:

ejenner
11th April 2007, 06:03 PM
hey I think you may be on to something with the CV joint theory! I've still not looked at it yet... It's a problem that feels like it has a nasty solution so I'm saving that one for later!

The simplest way to describe a chargecooler is to say that it is air-to-water instead of air-to-air as is the case for an intercooler. The intake air passes over water filled gills and that's how the heat is removed. The circuit carrying the water going in and out of the chargecooler includes a radiator so the heat can then be taken out of the water.

In my proposed design I'm running the chargecooler on it's own separate water circuit. I'm going to put the radiator in the same place that the intercooler currently sits. The raidator will be directly exposed to the oncomming air at the front of the car under the nearside headlight. The only thing between the radiator and the outside world will be the protective mesh.

Just been late-night shopping at B&Q! I raided the pluming department and I've now got the fittings to connect the water lines to the chargecooler. It's great the way the designers set it up to accept standard 15mm plumber's fittings!

I think I'm now ready to change the turbo to the water-cooled Mitsu TE05 and to setup the chargecooler system.

I wanted to avoid faffing about too much as I've not got much time to get it running well for the track day. Rather than building my own chargecooler core I bought one. However, if you were a bit crafty (BIRDIE) you could put a small radiator into a tank and run the intake air through the tank. That's how you do it without having to pay for a pre-constructed chargecooler.

BIRDIEMANGO
11th April 2007, 07:07 PM
OK,NOW YOU HAVE GOT THE SUB-CONSCIOUS AWAKE.:cry: ..............THE CHARGECOOLER PRINCILPLE IS SOMETHING I SHALL,KEEP ROTATING IN THE OLD-GREY MATTER.......OVER THE COMING MONTHS............
THE BAD NEWS OF COURSE IS THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO RETURN TO THE''LOSERS'' ROLLING ROAD TO SEE HOW MUCH IT HAS IMPROVED POWER.....AFTER YOU FITTED IT...........TO GIVE YOU A PLATFORM ..............TO WORK OFF:p

AS REGARDS COOLING (EXTRA) I PUT THE BONNET VENT'S IN TO GET HOT AIR ........OUT.
WENT TO HOMEBASE ON SUNDAY TO BUY SOME MORE FOR THE 99 TURBO BUILD.........I WILL HAVE TO CUT OUT THE STEEL BONNET FIRST BEFORE PAINTING IT ALL,SO IT IS ALL NICE AND TIDY............BUT I THINK I WILL FIT SIX VENT'S.
FOUR ON THE EXHAUST SIDE,AND TWO ON THE INTAKE.........
I WILL GET SOME PICTURES UP,BUT THEY ARE 5 QUID FOR A ''FULL'' ALUMINIUM VENT THAT YOU CAN CUT INTO TWO:lol: I.E RALLY CAR
THE VENT'S CAN BE REVERSED,TO ''SCOOP'' AIR IN AS WELL................AND WITH A LITTLE ''SCOTCHBRITE'' ,BE PAINTED TO SUIT.........

AN EQUIVALENT VENT FROM 'DEMON TWEEKS' WOULD COST BETWEEN 50-100...........AND THESE DO LOOK RATHER GOOD (IN NUTCASES' OPINION OF COURSE:) )

THE 99 TURBO ''WORKS'' RALLY CAR,SUFFERED TERMINALLY FROM ''HEATSOAK'',AS THERE IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH AIRFLOW THROUGH THE ENGINE BAY.............

ejenner
11th April 2007, 07:12 PM
******** to that birdie. I'm never going back there again! I've got my favorite RR booked for 20th of April. We'll see how it's going then.

BIRDIEMANGO
11th April 2007, 07:26 PM
EXTRA COOLING:cheesy: ER............AND LOOKS GOOD AS WELL ?????

Shan
12th April 2007, 11:30 AM
Saw the bonnet vent in the pic below on a 9-5 and thought it would look neat on a c900 / 99 :

http://www.saabphotos.com/gallery/albums/General_Pics/IMG_0227.sized.jpg

ejenner
12th April 2007, 06:01 PM
Don't think there'll be any need for a bonnet vent! But if the need does come about then it will be a functional vent and not a stylish one.

Took out the smokey T3 this evening.

Started messing about the the Mitsu turbo but found that the angle of the wastegate actuator directly conflicts with the position of the radiator. So I'm going have to modify the angle and position of the actuator bracket so there will be room to install the turbo.

ejenner
14th April 2007, 06:14 AM
Ok - think I've found out whats tugging the nearside front wheel. The track-rod seems to be loose on that side. Compared with the offside there certianly seems to be more play in it.

Does anyone know if I can replace the track-rod with one from either a 900 power rack or a 900 manual rack? Or has anyone got a spare track-rod they can send me? Been looking on the parts websites and can't find any track-rods for 99's ! but I know the racks are different so might be a waste of time trying to swap one over??

nutcase
14th April 2007, 09:00 AM
When I'm back at home I'll have a look to see how compatible bits are. Don't expect a 99 and 900 track rod to be the same. You might be able to adjust it though? Is your rack the original for the car? As the 99 rack changed a couple of times.

nutcase
14th April 2007, 03:12 PM
Nope. Not the same between 99 and 900. And from what I can see, neither type of 99 one is available new.

BIRDIEMANGO
14th April 2007, 04:16 PM
ERM.....HELLO CHAP'S
I GET THE 99 /900 TRACK ROD ENDS ,TO BE THE SAME BUT.............
FOR SOME REASON SAAB CHANGED THE 900 CLASSIC TRACK ROD END,FROM AROUND 89 ONWARD TO A DIFFERENT THREAD.........

BEFORE THAT I THINK I HAVE PUT,A 99/900 TRACK ROD END ON EITHER CAR AND VICE VERSA......I WILL CHECK TOMORROW:lol: PLENTY OF STEERING RACK'S LYING ABOUT:lol:

HOWEVER UP TO 1974,THE STEERIN RACK ON A 99 DIFFERS FROM THE LATER TYPE(THREAD DIFFERENCE ON TRACK CONTROL ARM) WHICH I AM LED TO BELIEVE ACCEPT'S A V4 TRE.......COULD BE WRONG

SO TO CLARIFY A TRE FOR A '74 ON 99 SHOULD FIT A 99/900 UP TO '89.........ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL:roll:

nutcase
14th April 2007, 04:28 PM
I'm working on the assunption that mr J has a knackered rod rather than rod end.

BIRDIEMANGO
14th April 2007, 04:34 PM
MMMM......I HAD ALSO A NAKARD ROD,LAST NIGHT..........

I AM AFRAID,IF IT HAS LOT'S OF PLAY,THE RACK NEED'S TO COME OUT ANYWAY,AND THE 900 ONE IS INDEED LONGER.....(SORRY CHAP'S,THERE WAS A JOLLY GOOD OFFER................ ON HOLSTEN PILS,AND IT IS FRIDAY NIGHT:lol: )
HOWEVER MR.SONNET 1 HAD A SERIES OF KITS MADE UP TO RE-CONDITION THE RACKS,HE MAY HAVE SOME LEFT............:o

ejenner
14th April 2007, 04:46 PM
I didn't knacker anything nutcase...! Was already knackered and I think it's the inner track rod end which is worn.

Today I got the TE05 watercooled turbo installed and plumbed in the water-lines. I also mounted the radiator for the chargecooler and started mounting the chargecooler itself. I've had to cut quite a bit out of one of the crumple-bars running along the bottom of the engine bay between the front of the car and the wheel-arch. It's not a structural part and didn't really need to be there so I cut it out to make room for the stupidly large chargecooler. :cool:


Here's the turbo prior to fitting. I had to move the actuator so the turbo would fit in the car! Now
held in place with custom built EJ bracketry.

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/te05_bracket.jpg

BIRDIEMANGO
14th April 2007, 05:01 PM
Te05,looks Lovely,is It Off A Saab............


Daft Idea,i Was Talking To A Lad Whgo Used To Mechanic For '' Stig'',back In The 70's....
They Used The Car's Heater Matrix As An Oil Cooler For The Gearbox,routing Pipes Up From The 'box, Over The Engine To The Inlet Pipes.......

As Regards The Charge Cooler,can You See Any Reason Why The Heater Matrix Radiator Could Not Be Used To Dispense With The Heat From The Chargecooler(instead Of The Mini Radiator)..................especially If You Are Restricted With ,lack Of Space.........

ejenner
14th April 2007, 06:44 PM
The TE05 is used on the later c900's but not on all of them. Saab 900 Carlsson should have a TE05. Other than the Carlsson I think the other cars to use the TE05 are the lite-pressure-turbos (LPT's) which were only boosted up to 145bhp.

b.t.w. A Carlsson should be making 185bhp - I noticed over on your other UK Saabs thread that you said 144bhp (no idea where that came from?)

I know a TE05 will make at least 220bhp and should be good for a bit more. So lets hope it all works!

ejenner
14th April 2007, 06:47 PM
- oh, and smart idea with the heater matrix. I was actually thinking of just disconnecting it but I spose the vents below the windscreen do direct air onto the heater matrix so maybe it could be converted and used for something else!

BIRDIEMANGO
14th April 2007, 07:30 PM
EJENNER ,THAT IS 144 BHP @WHEELS NOT THE FLYWHEEL;oops: FIGURES GIVEN BY MANUFACTURERS,ARE USUALLY GIVEN VIA A DYNAMOMETER.............WITH THE ENGINE OUT OF THE CAR,ON A TEST BED WITH,MANIFOLDS(NOT NECESSARILY,THE STANDARD EQUIPMENT ONES) FITTED...........

FIGURES GIVEN FROM A ROLLING ROAD ARE ONLY ACCURATE(USING THE TERM LOOSELY) FOR THE POWER @WHEELS..........

AFTER THAT........... USE THE FORMULA,THAT SONNET 1 PROVIDED TO GIVE YOU A FIGURE @ FLYWHEEL.............( IT GIVES 171 BHP@WHEELS, AFTER 125,000 MILES WITH FULL SERVICE HISTORY).HE DOES KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKIN' ABOUT,THOUGH NOT VERY GOOD WITH UMBRELLA'S ...............OR CHOCOLATE BISCUIT'S.............:lol:

LIKE I SAID A CARLSSON IS PRETTY BLOODY USELESS AGAINST A FULL SPEC 54 BHP@WHEELS 'RALLY MINI'' STUCK UP IT'S A%&SE ,AROUND OULTON PARK..........THAT EMBARRASED THE OWNER CONSIDERABLY,AND I HAD TO PAINT THE CARLSSON FOR HIM ................AFTER HE STUCK IT IN THE TYRES..........:lol:

ejenner
15th April 2007, 02:57 AM
I HAD TO PAINT THE CARLSSON FOR HIM ................AFTER HE STUCK IT IN THE TYRES

Got a lot of time for the old MINI. A friend of mine is restoring one at the moment. A bit foolish as he could've restored a tax-exempt shell but he's doing something like a 1984 instead and he's also got side-tracked so the thing is just sitting in the shed at the moment.

How do you reckon a powerful, properly setup 99 would fare against your MINI? Not necessarily talking about my own car (coz I'm not happy with that yet) but in principle if a 99 had 'everything' done to it would it eat the MINI or would it eaisly keep up?

Reminds me of when I was 17 and me and my mates used to race around the streets. I had a 1.3 KA and my mate had a 1.8 Vectra. He could just simply glide past me on the straights but could never loose the KA. It used to handle like a lightened Fiesta.

sonett1
15th April 2007, 06:26 AM
EJENNER ,THAT IS 144 BHP @WHEELS NOT THE FLYWHEEL;oops: FIGURES GIVEN BY MANUFACTURERS,ARE USUALLY GIVEN VIA A DYNAMOMETER.............WITH THE ENGINE OUT OF THE CAR,ON A TEST BED WITH,MANIFOLDS(NOT NECESSARILY,THE STANDARD EQUIPMENT ONES) FITTED...........

FIGURES GIVEN FROM A ROLLING ROAD ARE ONLY ACCURATE(USING THE TERM LOOSELY) FOR THE POWER @WHEELS..........

AFTER THAT........... USE THE FORMULA,THAT SONNET 1 PROVIDED TO GIVE YOU A FIGURE @ FLYWHEEL.............( IT GIVES 171 BHP@WHEELS, AFTER 125,000 MILES WITH FULL SERVICE HISTORY).HE DOES KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKIN' ABOUT,THOUGH NOT VERY GOOD WITH UMBRELLA'S ...............OR CHOCOLATE BISCUIT'S.............:lol:

LIKE I SAID A CARLSSON IS PRETTY BLOODY USELESS AGAINST A FULL SPEC 54 BHP@WHEELS 'RALLY MINI'' STUCK UP IT'S A%&SE ,AROUND OULTON PARK..........THAT EMBARRASED THE OWNER CONSIDERABLY,AND I HAD TO PAINT THE CARLSSON FOR HIM ................AFTER HE STUCK IT IN THE TYRES..........:lol:

Are you sure your kids mini is putting out 54 bhp at the wheels? I think it's more, that would give 71 bhp at the flywheel. Power to weight ratio for the carlsson is around 142 bhp/te assuming 185 bhp and 1300kgs and Neils mini would give 109 bhp/te assuming 71 bhp and 650kgs, something doesn't add up? My 106 rallye is 130 bhp at the flywheel and 825kg which gives a power to weight of 157 bhp/te, Neils mini must be nearer to this?

Of course these figures are peak power figures and depending on how your engine is set up could be totally acedemic, especially if you have a very narrow power band.

sonett1
15th April 2007, 06:55 AM
Got a lot of time for the old MINI. A friend of mine is restoring one at the moment. A bit foolish as he could've restored a tax-exempt shell but he's doing something like a 1984 instead and he's also got side-tracked so the thing is just sitting in the shed at the moment.

How do you reckon a powerful, properly setup 99 would fare against your MINI? Not necessarily talking about my own car (coz I'm not happy with that yet) but in principle if a 99 had 'everything' done to it would it eat the MINI or would it eaisly keep up?

Reminds me of when I was 17 and me and my mates used to race around the streets. I had a 1.3 KA and my mate had a 1.8 Vectra. He could just simply glide past me on the straights but could never loose the KA. It used to handle like a lightened Fiesta.

As in my previous post, all of this testosterone stuff is down to to power to weight ratio.
From what i have seen of tuned mini's, miglia stuff etc, a properly set up 99 N/A should be around the same times on a circuit with not too many slow twisty bits, such as Aintree.
To back this up i have some OOFICIAL figures (sorry, went into birdie mode for a moment there) Aintree sprint results..........
Birdies rally 99...................57.71 secs
Birdies brother rally mini.......57.42 secs
Phil Shorts ex miglia mini......54+ secs

Phil Shorts mini is a work of art, 12 valve head, Ohlins remote shocks,no inner wings, i think you get the idea.
If Birdie lightened the car some more and ploughed another say 1000 into the car on a big valve head and matched cam and maybe an aluminium flywheel thrown in he would be mixing it with the mini, although in the wrong class, in the Northwest sprints in his class he would be getting in the top 3 and more often than not hitting 2nd and 1st, depending on a certain rapid ultra light Europa being present, but i don't think Birdie is too bothered about launching an all out attack on the ANWCC sprint championship.

I hope that has answered your question?

BIRDIEMANGO
15th April 2007, 09:11 AM
SONNET,THE 54BHP@WHEELS IS FOR THE 1293CC ENGINE IN THE MINI,AT OULTON PARK AGAINST THE CARLSSON....................NOW WE HAVE THE 1380CC MINI ENGINE IN,WHICH IS NOW 91BHP@WHEELS:lol: AND REVS TO 9000RPM,AS YOU KNOW IT IS REALLY,REALLY SILLY..............AND YOU HAVE TO HOLD ONTO THE STEERING WHEEL FOR GRIM DEATH:cheesy:

EJENNER,THE POINT I AM MAKING HERE IS THAT THE 99 IS 400KG HEAVIER THAN THE MINI............AND HAS ONLY 18BHP@WHEELS MORE.
SO HOW IS IT ABLE TO ALMOST MATCH THE TIMES OF THE 1380CC MINI.....WHICH IS SO MUCH LIGHTER.......
I MUST HAVE SCREWED IT TOGETHER OK.:o AND SAAB KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN THEY DESIGN,THE ODD BIT OF SUSPENSION..........

I WEIGHED A BARE 'B''SERIES BLOCK YESTERDAY,WHICH COMES IN AT 49 KG...........THAT MEANS I HAVE BETWEEN ,SIX TO EIGHT 99 ''B SERIES'' ENGINE BLOCK'S BEING CARRIED AROUND IN THE WEIGHT OF THE SAAB 99,COMPARED TO THE MINI.........

(BY THE WAY..............IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO THROW A GRAND MY WAY......I WOULD BE QUITE HAPPY TO CONTEST NEXT YEAR'S SPRINT CHAMPIONSHIP:lol: )

sonett1
15th April 2007, 10:11 AM
Ah right, now it's making sense about the engines in the mini, but something is still not right, the 1293cc mini should not be able to keep up with the Carlsson around Oulton park, maybe the 900 is a little tired or maybe it's the driver?

So the 1360cc engined mini will be 140 bhp/te.
So does your 99 weigh in at around 1050 kg? i think power at the wheels was around 130 ish ? Which will give around 124 bhp/te.

As we can see from the times at aintree something is not quite right, assuming the drivers are as equally talented :lol: , it could be down to the power band and gearing.
Birdie can you remember the speeds at the finish over the speed trap for both cars?

All things being equal, your 99 should be around 150 ish at the wheels, this would give you 142 ish bhp/te, this would then make things tally up.

If i ever come into a ridiculous amount of money i will have full race spec engine built for you.

ejenner
15th April 2007, 06:14 PM
Quick snap of the chargecooler installation. No knuckles left!

http://www.red-green.co.uk/web/photos/gallery/99t16/full/chargecooler_004.jpg

ejenner
15th April 2007, 07:08 PM
A bit more detail then. I got involved with so many other posts today! I've just spent the last hour reading through all the responses!

I've been for a test drive and I might not be getting my full 1.5 bar at the moment. Didn't have much time to look at the gauge though. The car is making a funny farting noise at the moment. There's air leaking out through one of the bodged-up intake hoses and it sounds like someone blowing their nose.

Ok - description for the picture going from left to right.

1. Copper T-peice at the side of the radiator is running over to the lower water connector on the turbo.

2. Intake tubing and air-mass-meter.

3. Radiator from a mini.

4. Fan on the back of the radiator.

5. Chargecooler


The first test of the coolant system for the chargecooler didn't show any leaks but after driving round the block a couple of times I now have a water puddle on the floor. I couldn't be arsed to try and work out where it was leaking from as it was dark and the ground was wet! Hope it's not the joint at the bottom!

Dam trak rod is so bad now it's almost impossible to take right hand corners at any speed!

ejenner
17th April 2007, 07:33 PM
Got a boost chip from Swedish Dynamics today. Didn't really get a chance for much of a pasting as the brakes aren't working at the moment and I didn't fancy an emergency stop on the handbrake! I was bleeding the brakes this evening so actually thought they'd be working as I was setting off away from the house. Driving without brakes isn't a habbit of mine, it's something I try to avoid.