Julian

iTrader: (14)

I have a vested interest, having paypal'd Axiom Autosports, figuring money talked. Now I have no access to retrieve money or get solenoids.

Next best think build up my own set; advantage will be i) ability to upgrade connectors, I now plan to cut engine hardness and use Weatherpack sealed connectors (http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/gro...ID=WEATHERPACK), ii) incorporate an upgraded Fuel Pressure Regulator Control. One needs to use another 103-SM set up to feed vacuum into top, control take off from back and exhaust out front side.

I don’t understand why Rob offered Purge Control as an option and not this, the fuel control while not needed, is an engine critical system if kept in so an upgraded solenoid is necessary. As to Rob’s Purge Control, he was in error using a 3-way value, the 3-way vents the canister to the air when not being sucked into the intake; what is needed is a 2-way such as a 102-SM; but as the function is to actual suck fumes out of canister, the office size may also be critical. As a purge control failure does not lead to an engine failure and is not mounted on the ‘rats nest” assembly, I do not see a need to diverge from the OEM setup here.

My interest in this forum is to share the best information on the RX-7 not hold back info for a potential profit.

Double_J

iTrader: (28)

Ummm hello!!!!!!

ReZ311

iTrader: (4)

So, who's going to make the kit?

The weather packed plugs are a good idea.

fendamonky

iTrader: (6)

Time stamp owns you.... it was well over three years ago (01-27-06) that this post was made.



Please don't do **** like this without giving an accurate time reference... It got my hopes up and now I'm a sad panda for being let down

Double_J

iTrader: (28)

I am aware of when the post was made. I thought it was humorous as the person who posted just before that asked what happens when he stops making the kits. That was his reply.

Double_J

iTrader: (28)

PS eat some koala leaves. Its suppose to make Pandas feel better!

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Sorry, when I make mine it will only be a oneoff for me. My not for profit attitude includes not getting into business sidelines to make multiple parts for others.

As to the plugs, I had though Rob can up with a connector to perfectly mate to the OEM plugs, but per the UK site photo it is just a series of spade connectors. For that I'll go the extra step with the weathertight plugs, hacking the OEM harness, not like i'll want to ever put the rats nest back in.

PS: if any interest I have a '99 black box and JDM wiring harness that I will list for sale later.

pacman74

I'm in the same boat as you, I want to piece this together for myself, let the information be known to the public, and that's it. No profit making intentions here.

So, I've been looking through everything and I'm not quite sure why two of the valves are 103M and the other two are 103SM. Couldn't we use 103M for all four of the solenoid valves? From what I gather, they are both 3-way valves, but the only difference is the placement of the inlet. Am I missing something here? Is there a profound reason why 103SM is better to use than 103M for TCA (Pressure) and the CRV?

arghx

iTrader: (3)

Can somebody post the original vacuum routing diagram from the kit? From the factory, the charge control, charge relief, and turbo control vacuum solenoids were basically all the same in terms of function: they switched from vacuum chamber air to pressurized air, or vice versa.

Both are completely unnecessary on a car that is not aiming to pass emissions.



An EVAP solenoid is found on just about every spark ignition car these days. Fuel vapors are a major pollutant and EVAP systems as well as returnless fuel systems are all designed to reduce this type of pollution while maintaining driveability. You can open vent a main evap line, it's no different than opening the vent on a plastic gas can while you fill up your lawnmower. 2nd and 1st gen cars didn't even have an EVAP solenoid, the purge flow was controlled mechanically.



The pressure regulator control solenoid is for improving startability and idle quality when fuel temps get very hot. 80 C is an absurdly high temperature for a fluid that isn't coolant. I wouldn't be surprised if most FD's have never had the hot start solenoid engage since they were built.

Furthermore, have you ever met anyone who has vapor locked a fuel injected Rx-7? I have never heard of a fuel injected 2nd or 1st gen car vapor lock either. Those cars used top feed injectors and hot start solenoids triggered by the IAT sensor. The FD uses a fuel thermosensor and side feed injectors:



just keep it simple, plenty of single turbo cars have no hot start solenoid or EVAP solenoid.

mdpalmer

iTrader: (24)

Strange, I just looked at the PRC system diagram in the '94 FSM and it has different parameters. We're talking fuel temp > 50C/92F, water temp > 70C/158F. See page F-111 in '94 FSM. Looks like the data you got was from the service highlights. I can tell you right now that the PRC system has made my car easier to start when "hot". I have been running w/o it for almost 4 years (I didn't realize this until I took my UIM off) and installed it very recently and it makes a marked difference in how the car starts and even just plain runs after it starts up when "hot".

All this aside, I agree that the purge control solenoid is useless unless one has emissions mandates requiring it to be functional.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

They are posted here in a number of threads, just search!

I was posting a correction to Baily's Purge Control option along with a fuel presure regulator option for those that want to keep them; I was not saying they are necessary. However, the purge system is the single largest environmetal cleanup system. We may not have inspections to pass or care but why get ride of something that works without intrusion, non of these turbo'd 3d gens are road race cars, there is no scantioning body we need to save 2 lbs on.


I agree keep it simple; the purge system is non intrusive and does not effect engine performance.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

You could use "SM" valves for all feed each individually with a source (vacuum/pressure); but Rob saved some hose by using the manifold "M" type on the two solenoids that use a ganged vacuum supply. These two solenoids use standard operation configuration, the third vacuum solenoid must run in reverse, thus the vacuum placed on the exhaust port. and of course the TCA pressure need a pressure source not vacuum.

arghx

iTrader: (3)

They clearly changed it, because I do see the same parameters you mentioned in the 94 FSM. I bet the N3A1 etc ECU's all had the 80 C trigger temp, and the N3C1 and later ECU's switched to the 50 C temp. And then the Power FC surely would have a 50 C trigger given that it was designed in the late 90s. On the US Spec 2nd gen cars, the host start solenoid was activated when IAT's reached 78 C. So it pretty much never came on unless you lived in Death Valley. The Rx-8's don't have a hot start assist solenoid, as returnless fuel systems generate far less fuel vapor.

Whether you keep the hot start assist solenoid or not, your car isn't going to vapor lock.

pacman74

OK, so I received some more information from David at Fabco-Air, I basically asked him for information regarding the combination that Julian posted earlier. Here is his reply:

I have sold the part # 103SMG-2-M-V-12VDC for $49.55
I have not sold that part number with the "H" opt.
It would be my guess that the valve you have is indeed a 103SMG-2-M-V-12VDC.
I can ship that valve in 2 weeks .
I am currently out of the 1/16" orifice seat.
Typically lead time is 2-3 days .
If you want to add the "H" opt to the valve it will be a 6-8 week lead time for me to receive the high temp coils and also a price increase.
The SM-10 list for $1.75 each .
The 101 mounting brackets list for $3.15 per pair.
I do not stock the rest of the fitting shown in the picture.
I hope this information helps.

I don't know why he didn't address the 103M model in his reply. I may just have to give him a call directly when I am ready to purchase these.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Thanks for the research this is great. After my further study, I too am thinking that maybe the High Temp coils were not used by Rob as even with them rated at 356 degs, the Viton seals are only good for fluids of up to 180 degs so what would be the point. I was thinking the -H version as I had picked up on Robs statement that they were good for High Temp application, while I have not measured under hood temps I know water can be boiled on top of the UIM, so over 212 in that area; oh well the -M molded coils seem to be working for people and they are rated for 221 deg.

From the installed photos front and back I have confirmed that two of the coils are M- manifolded and to SM- single modular; note the side outlets, SM outlets are at same height front and back, M's are staggered up on front side.

The only thing I guessed at was the orifice size No. 2 and I may be well off. Before purchase I would tell Fabco Air the application of automotive vacuum/pressure control circuits and let them suggest orifice as we do not know flow rates used for such applications. Larger gives higher flow rates at lower pressure, smaller less flow and high pressures. As I see it we are moving very small volumes of air, these values are targeted for the hydraulic industry moving fluids in and out of hydraulic rams (large fluid volumes); I purely based my selection of a No 2 on Rob’s statement that the solenoids were rated for 100 psi. Well since they are actually good for over 500 psi the only feature that limits them to 100psi in the 3-way application is an orifice size of 2 (e.g. No 0 = 200 psi, with rated flow of 0.9 cfm at 50 psi to a No 4 30 psi max, with rated flow of 6cfm at 50 psi), maybe another bad assumption of reading too much into his words like the temperature.

Those wanting a “Bling” factor may want the buy Pro-CoatTM (Electroless Nickel Plate) option; spec”-N” on your valve.

pacman74

So, I guess the only part left is to verify what orifice size we need to use. But I was thinking about that and would the orifice size matter all that much for our application? I'm in the IT Industry and in the IT world, your network speed is only as fast as your slowest component. What I mean by this is regardless of the orifice size, wouldn't the flow rate be determined largely by the nipple size we put on the solenoid? In other words, if we use the same size nipples that were on the original solenoids, wouldn't we realize the same flow rate as stock, regardless of the orifice size, as long as the orifice is as big or a little bigger than the opening on the nipple? That's what my logic is telling me, but maybe someone can tell me why I'm wrong.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Well as a hydrodynamist in my earlier years, fluid flow is not quite the same; a restriction (reduction in area to pass through) will cause fluid to speed up as it tries to maintain a constant volume of flow. It takes a number of restrictions/resistances to impact the flow.
That all aside, in our application we need to move an actuator a small distance very quickly with a small volume of air so actual orifice size may not matter much as long as we are close. Further research has shown me that 1/16” orifice (i.e. No. 2) is the most common in the automotive industry.

Prometheus

iTrader: (2)

Does the restriction dynamics transfer to gas state, because I know a
fluid can't be compressed, nor a solid.

Only gasses can be compressed to another (more
dense) state.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Not saying fluid (fluid = water, air ..) is compressed, just speeds up. V1 x Area1= V2 x Area2 = Q (constant volumetric flow rate)

pacman74

Yeah, I see what you're saying, like when you put a high pressure nozzle on a hose. But in the case of the solenoids, the inlet would be the same size as the outlet, it's just the orifice in between that might be a different size. So, wouldn't the speed of flow at the inlet be the same as the speed of flow at the outlet since they are the same size? (As long as the orifice is the same size as the inlet and the outlet or a little bigger) For instance, in the attached picture, wouldn't the rate of flow at "1" be the same as it is at "3", even though flow is slower at "2"? I guess I didn't explain myself correctly in my previous post, but this is what I meant. If the size of the orifice is slightly bigger than the size of the inlet/outlet nipple, I don't think it should make a noticeable difference.

Anyhow, I agree, it looks like 1/16" orifice (No. 2) is the one to get.

Prometheus

iTrader: (2)

I understand about the fluid, my concern is:

larger nipple size on the solenoid = more volume of air to be compressed ie. More lag due to further compression before desired responce.

Wasn't the original problem with the OEM solenoids durability, not responsiveness?

pacman74

Yup, we're not trying to deviate from the stock flow rates, nor are we trying to deviate from the nipple size on the stock solenoids. What we were trying to figure out is the optimal orifice size for our application using the Fabco solenoids.

Prometheus

iTrader: (2)

Hey guys, thanks for keeping this thread going.

With all your work and communication, a great modification/ product will be brought back from the dead.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Well I am buying these from FABCO

one gang comprised of:

1 # 103-SMG-2-M-V-12VDC (for TCA Pressure)
2 # 103-SMG-2-M-V-12VDC (for CRV)
3 # 103-MG-2-M-V-12VDC (for CCA)
4 # 103-MG-2-M-V-12VDC (for TCA Vacuum)

2 x # SM-10 Mufflers
1 pair #101 Mounting Bracket

I am still looking for brass nipple sets.

Total cost should come in below $300 including fittings and connectors.

Julian

iTrader: (14)

Well away we go. I have been sitting on modified injectors, fuel rails, FPR, Damper, Kelvar braided fuel lines, Viton hose, JDM UIM, Excessive LIM, etc. awaiting a resolution to these solenoids. It may take a year to get my $330 back from Rob Bailey (when ever he gets home), but now at least I can rip into my car and get this under UIM project done.

Thanks to all for the research.