Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Everyone loves a picture.

Timing logs off my own car.

Without a crank trigger.

6C859AB6-5CA1-436B-AA65-873DBAD76007_zps

With crank trigger.

31EDDFD0-69B7-4BD8-8267-31B5B0438C21_zps

Probably worth mentioning that it's not essential on all RBs. For instance mine with the stock CAS is about as accurate as your trigger set up

Capture_zps65364c8d.jpg

Probably worth mentioning that it's not essential on all RBs. For instance mine with the stock CAS is about as accurate as your trigger set up

Capture_zps65364c8d.jpg

I don't understand how some can have issues while others won't, even with the same setups, .. I want to upgrade ECU but am fearful of timing issues, so don't know if I should go for a trigger kit from the get go even though as you say it's not essential in all cases

I hope something like that with all the mass at one side would not cause issues at high rpm? The design is a little different than the others I have seen. Would it still work with vct?

post-90047-14199930822356_thumb.jpg

Edited by BlackBox

Hi,

I thought the same but then I looked at some other kits that just use a longer bolt in the position of the adjustment bolts on the cam gear which weighs about the same as this 1.6mm rolled steel.

I welcome professional feedback :)

Cheers

The issue with using a disc is the centre if the cam gear is set back from the front.

Not a problem. Two piece centre, with a shim/washer behind. Spot weld together if paranoid, or make it out of 3mm sheet instead and machine some thickness off the bent up arms afterward.

The 2mm gap is the detection range and the finger needs to within the 2mm

This is what I was talking about, mine on my setup didn't read correctly till we got it out to exactly 2mm, any less and it would miss teeth, @ 1.1mm it would miss upto 9 in a roll at cranking speed, my ECU has a built in oscilloscope and that is how we found this issue

You only having one finger to look for probably won't be an issue though

It isn't volume it needs to be same moment of inertia. I=m x r x r where m is the mass in question and r the radius of the centre of the mass.

To work it out treat the bent up tab as one piece and the other section as a second piece. Add the results together.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...