CovertRussian's 05 LGT Build Thread

"The inherent heat of braking operation will also accomplish curing."

Sounds like they are saying curing is necessary only if you don't plan on using the brakes as brakes.

Right, I was laughing at that one too. But I think what they mean is, the paint wont harden to be damage and chemical resistant until you oven it or drive it enough to cure it.

In case someone paints it, leaves it on the shelves then does something to damage the paint.

For the rash of new mods, i'm surprised you haven't turned the same color as your car, Covert.

To make my post on topic, you might damage the paint on installation or during first use, prior to heating the calipers up to 200 F for an hour. not sure about anyone else, but i don't think my calipers get that hot ever. Sure, the rotor and pad (maybe...), but not the caliper...

For the rash of new mods, i'm surprised you haven't turned the same color as your car, Covert.

I go through stages, September was my work on race car month because I had an HPDE, so Legacy got neglected.

October has been filed with non stop LGT work and friends Subaru's .

Last couple weeks it's been header testing, spark plugs, vacuum leak, etc. This week I've been doing some suspension work. Guess that will be my next post.

To make my post on topic, you might damage the paint on installation or during first use, prior to heating the calipers up to 200 F for an hour. not sure about anyone else, but i don't think my calipers get that hot ever. Sure, the rotor and pad (maybe...), but not the caliper...

I've gotten mine pretty hot while racing, never took a IR thermometer to verify. I'll check after my calm drive home, if they are close to 200F while city driving then well maybe it's not that hard to cure it.

To measure the camber curve, motion ratios, or shock travel, first you need to find out at what height the suspension sits compared to the body with the car on the ground, that's your 0 height. Then you remove the wheel, the spring, and manually raise the suspension to that 0 height and start measuring as you move the suspension through it's travel arch. I usually will measure the wheel center to wheel arch (making marks on both as reminders)

Without the tire and wheel I could finally see how how much of the shock piston is exposed there is before the bump stop: about 1.12". The bump stop does compress fairly easily at first, I think there about 1.6" realistic travel though.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=257459&stc=1&d=1509422340

Now I did this because I wanted to measure the camber curve of the stock height suspension. To do this I removed the rotor, and used a digital angle gauge, which was reset to 0* at unladen car height.

Here is the angle gauge before the reset, grabbed this number incase it auto shut off (thus loosing the zero) on me while I was raising and lowering suspension.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=257460&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1509424462

Here is what the suspension looks like fully compressed, this is with a 2.6" bump, which would be physically impossible with the spring in place. If you look carefully you'll see -1.1* of camber gain

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=257461&d=1509424462

I measured the camber every 10mm, then converted numbers to inches and graphed them out. Here is what the front suspension's camber curve looks like. This is actually not bad at all for a strut, at no point during the bump travel did it loose camber, which is impressive for a strut.

More details can be found in this thread: 2005 Legacy GT Camber Curves

Been smelling some fuel lately especially after fillups. Was beginning to worry that my fuel tank was starting to rust through (while doing the brake lines a few weeks back, I saw some rust on the tank where the two halves are sandwiched together).

Pulled the back seat and cover this morning to be greeted with this, I park slightly downhill so that's why the front is more wet.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=258241&stc=1&d=1510759159

Guess I need yet another gasket again (looks like 2-3 removals kills). I'll spray some carb cleaner around it to make sure it's the gasket and not the o-rings in the quick disconnects.

EDIT: Replaced the gasket with new one and tightened the bolts like FSM suggests, no more fuel smell or leaks!

After replacing my sending unit I noticed no cracks. I did notice a rip in the gasket. Did nkt expect the gasket and mounting points to vibrate enough for that to happen...

If I could have redone it, I would have bought a higher flow fuel pump while the unit was new and had no fuel in it!

After replacing my sending unit I noticed no cracks. I did notice a rip in the gasket. Did nkt expect the gasket and mounting points to vibrate enough for that to happen...

Replaced mine two days ago too, haven't filled it full to see if it helped yet. I didn't see any housing cracks either, gasket looks fine too. I'm worried that my return line is leaking (since it rotates on the housing freely by design).

If I could have redone it, I would have bought a higher flow fuel pump while the unit was new and had no fuel in it!

Actually it's good that you didn't, there is a lot of tuning requirements for a high flow pump. For one they do not like our variable power systems, so you would have to tune it to run at 100% all the time, or bypass the variable power module so that the pump can receive 100% voltage all the time.

Either way, not something you wanna deal with unless your running out of fuel (which at close to 300 cold weather wheel horsepower uncorrected, I'm still good).

Which begs the new question, are clutches rated by raw HP or SAE corrected HP. I'm thinking by RAW HP, since it's based on pure mechanical grip vs raw twisting force. Which means a 300wtq car will be fine in the summer, but in winter it will be closer to 350wtq.

In regards to the fitting, when I pulled my sending unit (not knowing any better), I was rather rough with all movements and processes. Interesting to think about how much one learns after doing something once. I will be more gingerly with it next time haha.

So there is no bolt in replacement pump for our vehicles, they all need some form of tuning?

I was looking back at the graphs you posted, and your first post in this thread.

Do many tuners disable the close/open cycle, not sure if it's a simple "disable" sort of thing, or requires complete fuel table modifications?

I have only had one of my vehicles on a dyno before and never really saw what is dealt with. I'm assuming at WOT, fuel tables are edited and the computer delineates that to alternate throttle angles, so in essence, there is only one table needing adjustment?

I presume you utilize an open source form?

I don't know why I'm doubting you... I thought that adding a higher flow pump just increases the system's ability to flow, and doesn't require any tuning changes as long as you don't modify the regulated fuel pressure.

FWIW I replaced my OEM pump with a DW65c and didn't touch the tune.

I already have it set to run the pump at 66.7/66.7/100, so maybe that's why I'm not seeing problems.

... So there is no bolt in replacement pump for our vehicles, they all need some form of tuning?...

Many people on here recommend the DW65c as a drop-in replacement.

... Do many tuners disable the close/open cycle, not sure if it's a simple "disable" sort of thing, or requires complete fuel table modifications?

It's almost as easy as a simple "disable" thing.

In the ROM (tune) there's a table that defines the pump's duty cycle at "low" or "medium" levels, and you can change the duty cycle in each field ("high" duty cycle is always 100% and can't be changed). Stock (for my '05 GT) "low" = 33.3% and "medium" = 66.7%.

It's almost as easy as a simple "disable" thing.

In the ROM (tune) there's a table that defines the pump's duty cycle at "low" or "medium" levels, and you can change the duty cycle in each field ("high" duty cycle is always 100% and can't be changed). Stock (for my '05 GT) "low" = 33.3% and "medium" = 66.7%.

I meant the open/closed cycle in relation to under boost at WOT, how our vehicles tend to run lean at these conditions.

I have head issues with the Dw65C pumps, maybe this was just older units? I though they are replaced by a dw300 or similar? I do have a preference to walboro or aem, but have only used walboro for other mustangs

open loop / closed loop?

I'm pretty far out of my league in this thread so I'll sit back and wait for CR to answer.

I learn from this thread, not the other way around

Within his first post in this article there is the list of mods, under tuning, it states "closed/open loop delay..."

I think it is purely an ECU controlling injector duty cycle to control AFR at WOT to limit emissions, then alternate systems come in to play to limit detonation. (I THINK, I DO NOT KNOW THIS)

Edit: Here is a post of his.

Late to the party, but wanted to add a couple more data points. I did a slightly warm compression test on my car the other week (engine was probably around 100F). 140k miles, 100% Stock with stock tune up to 100k miles, Stage 2 with diy tune since 105k miles.

1 = 135psi, 3 = 132psi, 2 = 125psi, 4 = 130psi

 

I'm at 1,300ft elevation.

 

As for stock tune causing burned valves, all USDM Subaru's have what's called a Closed Loop to Open Loop delay, ECU basically keeps in closed loop fueling while you floor it, causing major leaness. It's not as dangerous on NA Subarus as it is on Turbo one's though, here is why:

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=258216&stc=1&d=1510676384

 

Redline shows stock tune, I'm at full boost at ~3.3k rpm but my AFR's stay above 13:1 until almost 5k RPM. Normally by 10psi you want your AFR's to be at 11.1:1 on turbo Subarus to reduce detonation. Don't mind the power up tick at the end, that's a virtual dyno anomaly.

 

Notice I said all USDM, JDM versions of the same cars have code and tables for closed loop delay, but the values are zeroed from the factory! Which means this was a US market only fix (probably for emissions).

I'm going to have disagree on the needing to run the new fuel pump at 100%. The more I dig into it, the more I think it's just an excuse people were using to explain poor quality pumps failing. In other application it was also an excuse for people running out of fuel before the nameplate rating on the pump. The FPCM on a lot of other cars (VAG applications) or stock wiring (our cars plus others) can be quite electrically restrictive, leading to customers complaining about still running out of fuel with their fancy new fuel pumps.

Both of these lead to the myth that one should hard wire the pump on 100%, from end users because crap pumps were failing and from manufactures because they didn't want hate calls for not meeting fueling targets. I've even been guilty of recommending bump up the "low" pulse width to 45% due to DW's recommendations of 6v minimum.

In reality undervolting the pump isnt going to damage anything, and the PWM control our system has is actually quite beneficial. Paul Yaw (Injector Dynamics) has a few talk about why you actually want it even on aftermarket ECU's.

The only way you're really going to damage a DC pump from undervolting is if it stalls and overheats. This is where the DW recommendation came from, the pump needs 6V to start reliably. Our cars get around this buy starting the pump at 100% power, then ramping down. It takes less power to keep a DC motor turning than to get it to spin up initially. There are also some corner cases were low voltage can cause excessive brush arcing and wear at high loads, but that isn't an issue on a fluid pump as the brushes are submerged in fuel and load proportional to flow.

Running the pump at 100%, 100% of the time actually has a few nasty downsides. First it uses a lot of power and due to their poor effiency create a lot of heat that is dumped into the fuel (pump uses fuel as coolant). This decreases power and increases evaporative emissions. Second is some fuel pumps can easily outflow the venturi pump in our fuel bucket. This causes high fuel pressure at idle and low load as the flow as the backpressure is more than the target fuel pressure. Probably wont happen if you just swap in a pump from an STI or a DW65c, but the AEM 340LPH fuel pump I put in last spring does.

So there is no bolt in replacement pump for our vehicles, they all need some form of tuning?

There are a few, DS65c is one, a lot of aftermarket pumps do not like PWM (Pulse Width Management). This is where updating the tune to run either 100% or hard wiring can be required.

I was looking back at the graphs you posted, and your first post in this thread.

Do many tuners disable the close/open cycle, not sure if it's a simple "disable" sort of thing, or requires complete fuel table modifications?

 

I have only had one of my vehicles on a dyno before and never really saw what is dealt with. I'm assuming at WOT, fuel tables are edited and the computer delineates that to alternate throttle angles, so in essence, there is only one table needing adjustment?

 

I presume you utilize an open source form?

Most tuners do seem to disable closed loop to open loop delay, some try to tune it out. There is a bunch of tables with time delay values, if you can make sense of them you can try to tune them out. But it's just not worth the headache, thats why we just zero them out and fully disable the delay, then instead use fuel maps for proper fuel tuning in closed loop to open loop transitions. You can also tune TPS based enrichments.

With that said, I have a post that shows how to disable CL to OL delay, it's as simple as CTRL-A set all to 0 save and upload haha.

Yes I use open source (RomRaider and ECUFlash).

I don't know why I'm doubting you... I thought that adding a higher flow pump just increases the system's ability to flow, and doesn't require any tuning changes as long as you don't modify the regulated fuel pressure.

Correct, if fuel pressure stays the same, fuel map shouldn't be effected, unless your fuel pump was failing and underfueling when your car was originally tuned. With that said, aftermarket fuel pumps don't always like our PWM systems, especially with 33% duty cycle.

FWIW I replaced my OEM pump with a DW65c and didn't touch the tune.

I already have it set to run the pump at 66.7/66.7/100, so maybe that's why I'm not seeing problems.

It's almost as easy as a simple "disable" thing.

In the ROM (tune) there's a table that defines the pump's duty cycle at "low" or "medium" levels, and you can change the duty cycle in each field ("high" duty cycle is always 100% and can't be changed). Stock (for my '05 GT) "low" = 33.3% and "medium" = 66.7%.

That my friend is tunning , since you modified the tune from 33% you have tuned for the new part, even if it's such a small change, which is what I meant when I said a tune is needed .

Many people on here recommend the DW65c as a drop-in replacement.

Yup DW65c doesn't require any housing modifications like Walbro's do. This is why I bought a new DW65c, but haven't used it yet, I haven't needed it so far so will probably sell it (plus I found a Walbro 255 from my turbo Sentra, same part number as what Subaru would need ha).

I'm going to have disagree on the needing to run the new fuel pump at 100%. The more I dig into it, the more I think it's just an excuse people were using to explain poor quality pumps failing. In other application it was also an excuse for people running out of fuel before the nameplate rating on the pump. The FPCM on a lot of other cars (VAG applications) or stock wiring (our cars plus others) can be quite electrically restrictive, leading to customers complaining about still running out of fuel with their fancy new fuel pumps.

 

Both of these lead to the myth that one should hard wire the pump on 100%, from end users because crap pumps were failing and from manufactures because they didn't want hate calls for not meeting fueling targets. I've even been guilty of recommending bump up the "low" pulse width to 45% due to DW's recommendations of 6v minimum.

Some pumps don't support PWM systems. It looks like Walbro's gerotor pumps don't like PWM, according to this walbro seller, it can damage the pump: "PWM operation can seriously damage Walbro gerotor pumps. These pumps are not benefitted by PWM speed control."

Walbro GSS342, which is what we would use, is gerotor style pump too.

DW says their intank pumps are impeller style and are compatible with PWM

I've seen people complain about their aftermarket pumps (even DW6c) having poor flow when ECU is calling for 33% duty cycle (stalling/etc).

In reality undervolting the pump isnt going to damage anything, and the PWM control our system has is actually quite beneficial. Paul Yaw (Injector Dynamics) has a few talk about why you actually want it even on aftermarket ECU's.

 

The only way you're really going to damage a DC pump from undervolting is if it stalls and overheats. This is where the DW recommendation came from, the pump needs 6V to start reliably. Our cars get around this buy starting the pump at 100% power, then ramping down. It takes less power to keep a DC motor turning than to get it to spin up initially. There are also some corner cases were low voltage can cause excessive brush arcing and wear at high loads, but that isn't an issue on a fluid pump as the brushes are submerged in fuel and load proportional to flow.

I'm not familiar with this doing a quick search and it sounds like variable voltage and PWM is different. PWM probably cycles the power too quickly for the pump style.

Running the pump at 100%, 100% of the time actually has a few nasty downsides. First it heats the fuel up by dumping all that excess heat into the fuel (pump uses fuel as coolant). This decreases power and increases evaporative emissions. Second is some fuel pumps can easily outflow the venturi pump in our fuel bucket. This causes high fuel pressure at idle and low load as the flow as the backpressure is more than the target fuel pressure. Probably wont happen if you just swap in a pump from an STI or a DW65c, but the AEM 340LPH fuel pump I put in last spring does.

I understand and agree with the benefits of PWM, it does make it for trickier with tuning the fuel map, since you can throw as much fuel as you want and it still will lean out. This is mainly since we can't control (no defined table, or is hard coded) when ECU decides when to switch between duty cycle ranges.

I run a Walbro 255lph on my Infiniti, it's 100% all the time. On hot summer days I do hear the pump more, but this is mainly because my fuel EVAP system is not built for boost and my standaloneish ECU doesn't let me control EVAP to same granularity that OEM code would.

I do think there are some benefits of running it at 100% too. For one it should have a higher fuel pressure can help with fuel economy by atomizing the fuel more. Another benefit could come from higher fuel temperature, it evaporates easier when it's sprayed, so it mixes better with the air, which once again can help fuel economy.

DW says their intank pumps are impeller style and are compatible with PWM

 

I've seen people complain about their aftermarket pumps (even DW6c) having poor flow when ECU is calling for 33% duty cycle (stalling/etc).

I think this has more to do with crappy pumps and the fact a lot of the tables were previously undefined. See below

I'm not familiar with this doing a quick search and it sounds like variable voltage and PWM is different. PWM probably cycles the power too quickly for the pump style.

In paratactic it's more or less the same. Think of it as variable voltage with a cheaper power supply and thus lower switching speed. It's around ~1khz, so might as well be variable voltage as far as a motor is concerned.

I understand and agree with the benefits of PWM, it does make it for trickier with tuning the fuel map, since you can throw as much fuel as you want and it still will lean out. This is mainly since we can't control (no defined table, or is hard coded) when ECU decides when to switch between duty cycle ranges.

http://www.romraider.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=8655&start=15

I do think there are some benefits of running it at 100% too. For one it should have a higher fuel pressure can help with fuel economy by atomizing the fuel more. Another benefit could come from higher fuel temperature, it evaporates easier when it's sprayed, so it mixes better with the air, which once again can help fuel economy.

For this to be useful, you'd need to be able to tune for it. Without going Cobb or ECUtek, there is no way to do dynamic fuel pressure compensation. Thus if you want higher pressure it's best to just buy a higher pressure fuel pressure regulator, and then set your fuel pump control logic up to make sure it always has enough flow to hit full pressure.

Woohoo, I completely forgot about that thread, thanks to NSFW for the 05 defs.

For this to be useful, you'd need to be able to tune for it. Without going Cobb or ECUtek, there is no way to do dynamic fuel pressure compensation. Thus if you want higher pressure it's best to just buy a higher pressure fuel pressure regulator, and then set your fuel pump control logic up to make sure it always has enough flow to hit full pressure.

You would definitely have tune for it, like anything else, since it would in theory increase the fuel pressure (I need to confirm fuel pressure vs duty cycle one of these days). I noticed that after re-flashes, for the first minute or two duty cycle stays between 66-100% which causes the idle AFR's to be really rich until it gets down to 33% duty cycle. This richness could also be related to TGV's being closed (though they should only be closed on cold starts).

As you mention fuel pressure regulator. The 04-07 STi is a direct replacement and fixes the modulation that occurs at low rpm and high torque demand?

It's a replacement with a little modification, wouldn't call it direct replacement for say.

The best thing for modulation is changing the FPR feed from one cylinder to sum of all 4 (plenum feed). STI FPR will help if your stock FPR is tired and reduces complexity (which means less parts to get tired and fail).

I don't know why I'm doubting you... I thought that adding a higher flow pump just increases the system's ability to flow, and doesn't require any tuning changes as long as you don't modify the regulated fuel pressure.

 

FWIW I replaced my OEM pump with a DW65c and didn't touch the tune.

I already have it set to run the pump at 66.7/66.7/100, so maybe that's why I'm not seeing problems.

 

 

Many people on here recommend the DW65c as a drop-in replacement.

 

 

It's almost as easy as a simple "disable" thing.

In the ROM (tune) there's a table that defines the pump's duty cycle at "low" or "medium" levels, and you can change the duty cycle in each field ("high" duty cycle is always 100% and can't be changed). Stock (for my '05 GT) "low" = 33.3% and "medium" = 66.7%.

I asked my Tuner a while back about a high flow pump and a tune. He said no need for a tune for just the pump. The fuel pressure regulator will take care of it. He also recommends the AEM pump over the DW65c. He's seen less problems with the AEM.

the issue with DW65c that i've heard about is that it doesn't work well with E85. otherwise it's fine. the DW300 is the one i've heard most switching to if using E85.

AEM also has a direct drop in, but the Whalbro requires modification of the pump housing, meaning you'll have to get a new one if you want to get a different kind.

I've had a whalbro, and it was fairly loud and replaced it and the housing with DW65c.

the DW300 is the one i've heard most switching to if using E85.

I wouldn't, failure rate for the 300 is too high.

the issue with DW65c that i've heard about is that it doesn't work well with E85. otherwise it's fine. the DW300 is the one i've heard most switching to if using E85.

 

AEM also has a direct drop in, but the Whalbro requires modification of the pump housing, meaning you'll have to get a new one if you want to get a different kind.

 

I've had a whalbro, and it was fairly loud and replaced it and the housing with DW65c.

For the AEM, 320, 340? Just weighing my options out for this and injectors. VF52 11 blade and no E85 locally.