Brunton Stalker XL #22 Build

[xcarguy]

toedrag,

 

Thanks for sharing the info on IR's new product. Looks great!

[toedrag]

Spent tonight swapping out suspension bolts with AN bolts and am about half way through. I also chose this opportunity to shim the various gaps between the heim joints & cone washers. Gaps vary from 1/64" to 3/32". I couldn't really fix the 1/64th gaps (I think there were only 2 of those), so I'm hoping that I can tighten things up enough to eat up that gap. For the other gaps, I used combinations of AN washers, which are available in both 1/32" & 1/16" thicknesses that I could find. Now, the suspension joints should be nice and tight against their mounting brackets.

 

I also used the 1/32" washers to help tighten up the Wilwood pedals, where the pedal mounts to the base. I really didn't like the slop & rattle of the pedals. Now, it's smooth & quiet.

 

A happy accident: if anyone remembers the earlier problem of the rear pushrod mounting bolt interfering with the rear toe rod, and I had replaced the grade 8 bolt with a socket head cap screw bolt because it had a much smaller head. As it turns out, an AN bolt works just as well because the AN8 bolt head is just about the same size as the head of the socket head cap screw.

[toedrag]

Wifey got mad at me tonight for using up our olive oil, but hey, at least I used the cheap stuff.:jester:

 

Why, you ask? Well, obviously, because it's one of the few common liquids that I can heat to 330 F without boiling or exploding, and it cleans up with soap & water.

 

uhh, okay...but whyyyyyyyyyyyy? (Because race car)

 

I need to characterize the Resistance vs Temperature behavior of 3 temperature sensors that I'll be using in the car:

 

• Duralast SU112, which is a cross-reference to a GM ECT sensor and, more importantly, has an M12x1.5 thread. This sensor will connect into the spare/plugged hole on the passenger side head [that is also threaded M12x1.5].
  
• Two other temp sensors, Speedhut G-SNDR-07, which have 1/8 NPT threads. One of these will connect to an M20x1.5 adapter that replaces the stock LS3 oil level sensor in the oil pan. The other will connect to the oil cooler block-off plate on the oil pan. I'm connecting both initially so that I can compare to see which one sees hotter oil. Once I know that, I'll use the hot one full time, and the other will go on unused.
  

These sensors will eventually connect to my custom gauge setup, which means I have to design it around the resistance curves that these sensors will provide. So, that means I need to know what that curve looks like. Once I have that, I can easily build my circuit to very accurately display the temperature.

 

 

http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=27646&g2_serialNumber=3

 

To run the experiment, I slowly heated the oil to 330F and then turned off the stove. As the olive oil cooled, I recorded resistance readings at 10 deg increments.

http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=27642&g2_serialNumber=4

 

And the results. I was a little surprised that the two Speedhut sensors weren't closer; at 100F there is a 10% difference in their resistance. That delta gets smaller the hotter they get. Not a big deal, I can adjust the circuit accordingly. What's also interesting is that I have data from another SU112 experiment last year and when I compared the two sets of data, the newer sensor is, on average, 6% higher at a given temperature. What that means is that if I had simply used my old data to build my circuit and then used the new sensor, my circuit would have interpreted the temperature to be too low, by maybe ~5 deg F on average. It could be a non-issue, but I like precision monitoring and am glad I took the 2 hours to run the experiment:

http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=27648&g2_serialNumber=2

[subtlez28]

Toedrag, you are putting some real science into your build! Quite impressive.

 

Your experiment has me wondering again about the accuracy of my CAN-BUS coolant temp and oil pressure gauges...

[NVP66S]

Looks like your Speedhut sensors are similar to my Mazda OEM gauge sensor. I just measured it and gave the data to VDO. I measured 85 Ohms at the thermostat set point. Unfortunately, the VDO rep said I need to replace the sensor with one of theirs.

 

And thanks for the build thread. I'm enjoying it immensely. (PS that olive oil is probably no longer virgin with those 3 probes sticking in)

[toedrag]

Thanks, guys! Glad someone finds it interesting.

 

(PS that olive oil is probably no longer virgin with those 3 probes sticking in)

 

Ha! :cheers:

[powderbrake]

Interesting and a solid approach to getting good data.

 

I am not surprised that there is a 10% difference in the two sensors. I doubt that oil temp is that consistent between engines/ drivers/ sensors.

 

You approach to calibrate them will give you an accurate reading.

[xcarguy]

toedrag,

 

You're a mad genius! :hurray: . . . . :cheers:

[toedrag]

Thx, xcarguy, but my genius was short lived.

 

Saturday was one of those not-so-good garage days, for two reasons:

 

1. As I now know, a 33mm socket is too small when hammering in the AN16 water neck fitting onto the water pump. The threads of the water neck were completely destroyed. I was able to remove it (after borrowing a slide hammer, making a large clevis, having the bolt rip through the fitting, subsequently drilling another set of holes and continuing with the slide hammering), so I'm back to square one. I'll likely hire someone to do a weld-in AN16 bung for me because I'm not spending another hour with my mini-sledge

 

In hindsight, jevs on #23 used a 35mm socket and had success. Sort of wish I read that earlier.

 

2. Not wanting to end the day after such a failure with #1, I decided to something easy to get a win for the day, and I chose to install my SU112 coolant sensor in the passenger side head. I overtorqued it, and the sensor broke in half; half was in my hand, and the threaded half was in the head. After an appropriate amount of :cuss: and then composing myself, I wedged a flat head screwdriver in the hollow part of the sensor and rotated it out quite easily. Phew.

 

I called it a day after that.

 

---

Sunday was better. Found a local welder with great reputation. The only open question in my mind is if there is enough clearance between the fitting and the water pump pulley. Having never welded anything myself, nor hiring any welders, I have no idea what the allowable clearances are. The pulley, on this pump, isn't removable as far as I know. The barbed fitting on the lower left in the following picture gets removed and the AN16 bung is welded in its place. I've sent this picture & question to the welder to see what he says.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/$(KGrHqQOKosE5k3!lEgcBOe9j7VpRQ~~_12.JPG

 

Other light work on the day:

• Attached the motor mount brackets to the engine and made the required modifications to the engine mounts & trans mount that get installed on the frame.
  
• Removed the little oil pan cover plate and installed the CBM-10820, along with the Speedhut G-SNDR-07 sensor and 1/8 NPT plugs on the unused ports of the CBM-10820. The only weirdness here was that I ended up drilling out the CBM-10820's M12x1.5 hole and re-tapping it as 1/4 NPT, then used a 1/4 to 1/8 NPT bushing for the sensor. I did it this way b/c the sensor was a little too long to use the native 1/8 NPT holes based on how they are oriented. I know there are other smaller 1/8 NPT temperature senders out there, but I needed one with an isolated ground terminal and preferred a GM-style connector.
  
• Installed a new SU112 sensor in the passenger side head, and it's still in one piece, hurray!
  
• Removed the oil level sensor on the pan and replaced with an M20x1.5 to NPT adapter and second Speedhut G-SNDR-07 temp sender. The unthreaded hole of the adapter was a little too small for the tip of the sensor to pass through, so I had to drill it out a tad. There's still plenty of metal left around the widened hole.
  

[Anaximander]

Toedrag, I am a newbie to this site and a new M-Spec Stalker owner (#1). It is almost exhausting to read all of the things one has to do to build this car in the short amount of time that you have done it in so far. You seem to have the patience of Job. Lacking any major skills or patience for that matter, I am glad that M-Spec #1 came my way. However, I know I will never have even a small fraction of the understanding and appreciation of my car's various bits compared to your build. Congrats on what seems to be a very rapid and precise build. Bob Schilling

[toedrag]

Toedrag, I am a newbie to this site and a new M-Spec Stalker owner (#1). It is almost exhausting to read all of the things one has to do to build this car in the short amount of time that you have done it in so far. You seem to have the patience of Job. Lacking any major skills or patience for that matter, I am glad that M-Spec #1 came my way. However, I know I will never have even a small fraction of the understanding and appreciation of my car's various bits compared to your build. Congrats on what seems to be a very rapid and precise build. Bob Schilling

 

Glad you found the site, Bob! Welcome. Thx for the kind words; you'll enjoy M-Spec #1 for sure.

[xcarguy]

Brit,

 

Sorry to hear about your not-so-good day. :banghead: And welcome to the world of 'over torqueing' . . . . Anyone turning wrenches at this level has been there . . . . Ask me how I know? :jester:

 

As for welding the bung to the water pump, have you considered using J.B. Weld. I promise you, it will not leak once set, and you will have to pretty much destroy the bung/water pump to separate the two. I've used this product for many years with a ZERO failure rate.

 

Grab the family and take them to see Disney's 'Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day' . . . . . Your day will seem tame.

 

. . . . . :cheers:

[toedrag]

Brit,

 

Sorry to hear about your not-so-good day. :banghead: And welcome to the world of 'over torqueing' . . . . Anyone turning wrenches at this level has been there . . . . Ask me how I know? :jester:

 

As for welding the bung to the water pump, have you considered using J.B. Weld. I promise you, it will not leak once set, and you will have to pretty much destroy the bung/water pump to separate the two. I've used this product for many years with a ZERO failure rate.

 

Grab the family and take them to see Disney's 'Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day' . . . . . Your day will seem tame.

 

. . . . . :cheers:

 

Haha. Thx, Shane. I've never used JB Weld before, but I bought some the other day to use with a little air straightener honeycomb insert thingamajig for the 4" air intake tube. It never occurred to me to use it for the AN16 bung. I think I'll add this to the list of q's for Scott. Thx for the suggestion.

[subtlez28]

I had the AN fitting welded to my LS3 pump (and the LS7 pump I tried prior...). I was also worried about the pulley, but I guess it was not a problem.

 

I had a pin hole leak in my aluminum radiator. At Brunton's suggestion I used "Quick Steel" (pretty much like JB Weld) and it has held perfectly. So, I think you would be fine either way. I would lean toward the welding though, as you will be applying twisting force when tightening up your hoses.

[toedrag]

I had the AN fitting welded to my LS3 pump (and the LS7 pump I tried prior...). I was also worried about the pulley, but I guess it was not a problem.

 

I had a pin hole leak in my aluminum radiator. At Brunton's suggestion I used "Quick Steel" (pretty much like JB Weld) and it has held perfectly. So, I think you would be fine either way. I would lean toward the welding though, as you will be applying twisting force when tightening up your hoses.

 

Thx for the info, subtlez28. My welder confirmed it'll be tight but doable. I'll probably go see him later this week with the pump & bung to get it done.

[jevs]

Thought I would post a pic of that throttle tie rod I mentioned in case anyone wanted to see it. The end at 0" is about in line with the ruler end, even though the picture makes it look like it is overhanging. The threads go near to the center from what I can tell. Maybe 3/16 not threaded in the middle. Hard to tell for sure. I think you could trim 1/2" off each end and be ok (make it 1" shorter). The ends themselves should still work with no trimming. So, long story short....I think this could be made shorter by an inch or so relatively easy. I think it is ok for me, but I know someone else was saying they needed shorter.

Edited October 14, 2014 by jevs

[toedrag]

Still waiting on the transmission :toetap05:

 

Started working on the fuel system, but ran into some questions for Brunton.

 

In the meantime, I've been looking into the PCV system and other unknown bits on the engine. Brunton advocates deleting the PCV System, but since I'm not comfortable with that idea, I'll keep it and will add 1 or 2 catch cans. More on catch cans later...

 

I made the following picture, more to remind myself of what things are once I have forgotten about them, and figured others may find it useful:

 

Below is the front of the engine as it comes from GMPP, minus the water pump, which I removed in advance of having the AN16 bung welded on.

 

http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=27707&g2_serialNumber=1

 

Starting on the top left with the 3/8 spigot labeled "PCV 'Intake' ". This port normally connects to a tube that goes to the Air Intake path, after the air has passed through the MAF sensor, but before the throttle body.

 

Below the PCV Intake is the Evap or Purge solenoid. This valve would normally connect to a charcoal canister for fuel tank venting, where its purpose is suck the vapors from the charcoal canister and send them through the combustion process. Since the Brunton venting system is a coil of hose behind the tank, there is no charcoal canister to mess with, which means I'll delete the Evap solenoid and associated plastic tube.

 

Moving to the right, the plastic tube from the Evap solenoid connects to a 5/16" nipple on the right side of the Throttle Body. The important part is that it's behind the throttle body valve, which means it's a constant vacuum (I think). Since I don't believe I have use for a spare vacuum port, I'll cap this with a vacuum cap. [EDIT: Or maybe this is where the brake booster vacuum hose will connect?]

 

Lastly is the coolant steam tube, which allows coolant vapor to burp out of the block and will terminate into the coolant surge tank.

 

----

 

On the topic of the PCV System & Catch cans....wow, talk about politics & religion. There are some strong opinions on both side of the debates between Keeping vs Deleting the PCV System, PCV system changes, Catch Can designs, etc. It's kind of mind boggling, actually.

 

A useful video on the general function of a PCV System is here:

 

As stated, I plan to retain the PCV system and to deal with the unwanted reverse flow of oil with catch cans. Interestingly, in the LS3, there appears to be some choice in how the 'Dirty' air exits the block. In the GMPP LS3 crate engine, the default method for expelling Dirty air is to use the port under the Intake Manifold on the valley cover, which if I understand things (debatable), is a restrictor orifice b/c there is no traditional PCV valve in the LS3 PVC system. The other method is where the Dirty air exits the rear port of the driver's side valve cover (which is capped by default from GMPP). I'm not sure which is the better of the two, but it seems that the restrictor can become clogged as a worst-case scenario. But, I suspect that a clogged restrictor probably doesn't occur with regular oil changes on a healthy engine - still researching, however...

 

Most people only do catch cans on the Dirty side of the PCV system. On the clean side, during WOT, it seems that oil can and does creep up & out of the 'PCV Intake' tube. The solution here is to either not drive WOT (puh-lease), or add a catch can on the Clean side. The question is 'How big'? Catch Can manufacturers will happily sell you two catch cans, but there miniature catch cans (a few oz) that replace the oil filler cap and have a tube that runs to the Air Intake. Since this replaces the stock PCV Intake path, the PCV Intake tube would then be capped.

 

I'm not sure which way I'll go yet...

 

I found this very useful diagram on ls1tech.com for dual catch can routing when the restrictor orifice is used:

http://www.andersonperformance.net/pcv-2int.jpg

Edited October 16, 2014 by toedrag

[toedrag]

And because I'm a data driven individual, I decided to look into the fuel pump on the Brunton shopping list to validate that it's a good match to the application, and I'm happy to say that it is. GMPP indicates that the LS3 requires 40 gph @ 58 psi.

 

From http://www.vepetersen.com/images/stories/PDFs/Catalogs/walbro_aftermarket_catalog_2013.pdf

 

http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=27743&g2_serialNumber=3

[xcarguy]

. . . I've been looking into the PCV system and other unknown bits on the engine. Brunton advocates deleting the PCV System, but since I'm not comfortable with that idea, I'll keep it and will add 1 or 2 catch cans.

 

On the topic of the PCV System & Catch cans....wow, talk about politics & religion. There are some strong opinions on both side of the debates between Keeping vs Deleting the PCV System, PCV system changes, Catch Can designs, etc. It's kind of mind boggling, actually.

 

As stated, I plan to retain the PCV system and to deal with the unwanted reverse flow of oil with catch cans. Interestingly, in the LS3, there appears to be some choice in how the 'Dirty' air exits the block. In the GMPP LS3 crate engine, the default method for expelling Dirty air is to use the port under the Intake Manifold on the valley cover, which if I understand things (debatable), is a restrictor orifice b/c there is no traditional PCV valve in the LS3 PVC system. The other method is where the Dirty air exits the rear port of the driver's side valve cover (which is capped by default from GMPP). I'm not sure which is the better of the two, but it seems that the restrictor can become clogged as a worst-case scenario. But, I suspect that a clogged restrictor probably doesn't occur with regular oil changes on a healthy engine - still researching, however...

 

Most people only do catch cans on the Dirty side of the PCV system. On the clean side, during WOT, it seems that oil can and does creep up & out of the 'PCV Intake' tube. The solution here is to either not drive WOT (puh-lease), or add a catch can on the Clean side. The question is 'How big'? Catch Can manufacturers will happily sell you two catch cans, but there miniature catch cans (a few oz) that replace the oil filler cap and have a tube that runs to the Air Intake. Since this replaces the stock PCV Intake path, the PCV Intake tube would then be capped.

 

Brit,

 

The car is looking great! Can hardly wait to see it finished and on track at Cresson. Since the LS6 and LS3 PCV systems are essentially the same, I thought you might be interested in learning what I’ve experienced with my PCV system over the last couple of years. At the very least, it’s food for thought.

 

First of all, a resounding YES!!!; the debated opinions regarding ‘the use of’ vs. ‘the deleting of’ the PCV system on the LSx engine is are exceedingly strong on both sides of the argument. My personal opinion on this topic would be this; RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH and then decide for oneself what one would want to do. I, just as you’ve done, made the ‘informed’ decision to retrain my PCV system (although, with some slight modifications). This conclusion (keeping the system) seemed the most logical choice with respect to adequately expelling positive crank case pressure during high sustained rpm driving such as that which would be experienced when running on a closed road course or track.

 

Just as the LS3, the LS6’s nonstandard (compared to the PCV valves of old) PCV valve is located in the lifter valley (underneath the lifter valley cover). For evacuating positive crankcase pressure, I plumbed a hose from the PCV valve to a port on the intake. To help minimize the amount of oil vapor that enters the intake, I installed an oil / air separator on (in line with) the PCV hose. The link below shows this setup:

 

http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=23806

 

In addition, I ran both valve cover ports to ambient via a T-connector and then through an inline filter (again, see the above link). This setup worked well at MSR Cresson on the 1.7 course where WOT applications were of relatively short duration compared to some other tracks with exceedingly longer straights. One such track is the Lightning course at NJMP. Running on Lightning at NJMP in July exposed the Achilles Heel of my setup. During extended WOT runs down the front straight, positive crank case pressure was high enough that it essentially overcame the ability of the stock PCV system to adequately evacuate the crankcase properly which resulted in the engine evacuating pressure through the valve cover clean air inlets. The end result was an oil soaked inline filter and a flawed design on my part. This, in turn, gave rise to my revisiting the clean air side of my system with the end product being the addition of a second (smaller) catch can for the ambient air source (see link below):

 

http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=27158

 

The results of my setup to date are this; after a day at the track (approximately two hours of track time), I’ll be down approximately ½ quart of oil with maybe 25-30% of that oil collected in the oil / air separator (see video link below). While my video claims an oil loss of 4 ounces, it’s actually closer to ½ quart:

 

 

Having said all of this, I think you are on track with the idea of using a couple of catch cans with your PCV system.

 

Also, FWIW, here is a link to a photo of my steam vent line setup. My understanding is that the steam vent line needs to be routed to a pressurized portion of the cooling system (mine is plumbed to the thermostat housing; zero issues).

 

http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=23528

 

A final note; as for using anything other than the 'factory' oil filler cap, I would use caution, and again, do my research regardng this mod. Of those folks I have visited with who have actually modified / replaced/ etc. their oil filler cap in the name of an 'improved' PCV system, the majority admmitted that they usually end up with oil residue under the hood when this mod is paired with high performance driving.

 

. . . . . :cheers:

[toedrag]

Thx, Shane! Great info on the history & evolution of your setup.

 

If I follow your current design, you're not allowing the PCV system to pull a vacuum, which means there is no path for the oil to enter the inktake. And when pressure builds in the crankcase, it's drawn up & out of the valve cover hoses due to the pressure differential, and then through the breather on top of the catch can?

 

It my understanding is correct, it's another interesting variation on the PCV system's implementation. It solves the oil ingestion risk and, in theory, still allows the icky gasses to escape from the crankcase. I'm not opposed to atmospheric venting either. Although, upon further consideration, I wonder if the gasses would have any corrosive effects on surrounding material over time? Perhaps since you have the hood vents back there it allows the gasses to escape pretty easily? That's the only thing that might prevent me from doing it your way since I don't have hood vents.

 

A final note; as for using anything other than the 'factory' oil filler cap, I would use caution, and again, do my research regardng this mod. Of those folks I have visited with who have actually modified / replaced/ etc. their oil filler cap in the name of an 'improved' PCV system, the majority admmitted that they usually end up with oil residue under the hood when this mod is paired with high performance driving

 

Right, with a simple breather like the following, I had seen where people had problems with oil eventually saturating the filter and later slowly spraying the top of the engine with oil droplets:

http://www.jegs.com/images/photos/700/710/710-68841.jpg

 

Here's one example of the miniature catch can I was referring to. It's fully enclosed and then has a tube to connect to a fresh-air/metered inlet. The idea is that b/c this is the "clean" side of the stock PCV system, the oil that is temporarily trapped is also still "clean" and can be allowed to drip back down into the valve cover. The question is whether or not it fits under the hood and if it's big enough:

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server1800/581ad/products/174/images/470/i_ZFvVD8P_S__22995.1405381066.1280.1280.jpg?c=2