The Rebirth

[BigMike]

Hey guys,

I forgot the mention that my speedometer sending unit and its mating ring gear at the transaxle output changed with the transaxle. So it is possible that the C56 was reading too low and the C60 is reading to high. Good point right? What I should have done is used my phone's GPS, which I didn't do at the time so honestly I don't think this picture can be used to accurately compare the two transaxles. I firmly believe I have gotten a 400 to 500 RPM drop as the math suggests, not the wimpy 200-300 RPM drop shown in the attached image...

[BigMike]

July 7, 2011 - Repositioned front License plate, fixed broken speedometer cable

The pics do the talking! The license plate bracket was $9 from AutoZone

[BigMike]

August 21, 2011 - Replaced front bumper & went PANDA!

First off, HUGE thanks to Bill for making this possible (Bill pulled front & rear white bumpers for me from the wrecking yard!!) This is a flat nosed 1985-86 style front bumper, which I prefer and have always wanted to convert to.

Pic 1: New bumper
2: The damaged bumper from the Hwy180 accident of fall of 1999
3: Broke a bolt and just decided to weld the hood latch to the radiator support. Stupid, I've always regretted not fixing this the proper way.
4: Old bumper removed
5: Inner bumper REMOVED and DISCARDED! Woohoooo no more of that. I don't know the weight by memory, but it was around 20-30 pounds!
6: Looks pretty mean, huge air intakes for it's jet engine hahaha
7: Got the old radiator support removed. Interesting look at what its going to be like when I tilt the radiator forward for the reverse hood scoop mod still in the works.

[BigMike]

August 21, 2011 - Replaced front bumper & went PANDA! (continued)

Installing the front blinker lights...

The blinker lights installed into the inner bumper, which I removed, so I had to figure out how to get em mounted.

Pic 1: The 1985-86 flat nose bumper has material to position the blinker assembly
2: The 1987 slant nose bumper does not
3: Hole drilled in each side of each blinker housing
4: Similar hole drilled into the bumper
5 & 6: Light housing installed with simple zipties! Light weight and plenty strong

[BigMike]

August 21, 2011 - Replaced front bumper & went PANDA! (continued)

FINALLY! The last cosmetic remnants from 1999 are gone! :D :D

Check out the last pic here: My MR2 has now gone PANDA!!!!!!!! I installed black front valance, black side skirts, and a black spoiler, all curtsey of BryanH! Thanks man!! I have put them to great use!!!!

[BigMike]

Oct 30, 2011 - Fixed Sway Bar Mount

After driving the car for FIVE AND A HALF MONTHS without a front sway bar, I FINALLY got time to get it fixed

Pic 1: A lot of metal got ripped out, so I had to replace a lot back in there. It was pretty rough

2: It looks like crap but is actually a very stout repair. I added a TON of metal and welded the snot out of everything. I am not so good at upside down welding but it turned out better than expected for meh.

3: All done! Looks pretty good if I don't say so myself

4: I also found a few cracks on the driver's side mount!! so I did some grinding & welding to make sure it holds up for many years to come

Also, I changed the setting on the front bar from hardest to softest (it is a 3-way adjustable ST bar). It feels really great right now and I don't think I'll be changing it for a while.

[BigMike]

November 20, 2011 - Increased front camber to -2.5 degrees

I modified the strut towers of my front suspension to gain a ton of more negative camber. Please see the full story here: Simple DIY Extra Camber

Here are some pics that should illustrate what was done in a nut shell:

[BigMike]

UN-FREAK'N-BELIEVABLE DIFFERENCE with -2.5 degrees camber compared to -1.3 degrees. W-O-W. Please read my DIY thread for my full reaction to this. Truly a great modification, wish I had done this many, many years ago!

[BigMike]

Here come some misc Panda pics

Aerial shots are from my wife's 14th floor office. The MR2 looks great even from above!!

[BigMike]

December 7, 2011...

DYNOED!!

Pic 1: My baby loaded on Precision Automotive's Dyno Dynamics dynometer!!!!

2: Configuring the system

3: WOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!

[BigMike]

Dyno Details:

We did three pulls all in 4th gear (1.166:1 gear ratio)

He printed out copies with better Y-axis resolution, and I entered the data into Excel for better viewability on a computer.

The first run was with the Supercharger on, everything all stock/normal at 8 PSI boost. This resulted in 143.4 HP ~ 7,375 rpm and 115.9 lbs-ft TQ ~ 3,700 rpm

Next we ran it with the same but with the Supercharger switched off. This resulted in 68.9 HP ~ 6,125 rpm and 65.5 lb-ft TQ ~ 3,125 rpm

Then we removed the stock Toyota air filter and did one last pull at 8 PSI boost. This resulted in 150.4 HP ~ 7,400 rpm and 117.5 lb-ft TQ ~ 3,750 rpm

It's was AWESOME to see the difference with & without the Supercharger and at no surprise it was also very cool to see the advantages of a less restrictive intake.

The Supercharger adds 75 to 80 Horsepower, but keep in mind that with the Supercharge clutch pulley switched off, not only is the engine operating under a vacuum, but it's got the additional restriction of two huge rotors right in the air stream. But, it's great to know that when I play with older Hondas that I now know how much power I am competing with Go! Go! 68 Horsepower!!

	8 PSI	8 PSI no air filter	0 PSI with air filter
Wheel Horsepower	143.4 HP	150.4 HP	68.9 HP
Wheel Torque	115.9 TQ	117.5 TQ	65.5 TQ

[BigMike]

This is power at the Dyno rollers. Even when you take away the 1.166 4th gear multiplication, this engine is still putting 148.6 128.99 HP to the ground.

* Edit: Correction: It is estimated to be 128.9 HP to the ground not 148.6. Please see reply #239 below for updated numbers *

THIS MAKES NO SENSE!! This engine is rated for 145 HP at 6,400 rpm and 140 TQ at 4,000 rpm. HOW IN THE WORLD is it producing so much power ...... and at a 15% higher rpm?!

Consider what the engine is producing at the crank to put 148.6 HP (correction for 4th gear) to the ground:
15% power loss: 170.89 crank HP
20% power loss: 178.32 crank HP
25% power loss: 185.75 crank HP
30% power loss: 193.18 crank HP

Honestly, this is crazy. What am I missing here? How can this engine be making 170-180 HP? It must have higher compression pistons, a modified ECM, aftermarket camshafts, adjustable cam gears.... All I've done is I've fitted my lightweight flywheel, that's it, that is the only aftermarket mod to date.

I am going to pull the cam cover when I get back home next week and I will report back!

[Sirdeuce]

Headers?? 264 cams?? Bigger crank pulley? Larger throttle plate?

[BigMike]

Headers?? 264 cams?? Bigger crank pulley? Larger throttle plate?

Stock manifold, I've been wanting to check my cams for a long time -- now I'm really motivated, stock crank pulley & boost, have not checked the TB.

Hey Bill,

I have been trying to think back when I had the 294 cams. I remember it had a smooth idle, but the vacuum was down to I think 19 or 18 in-Hg. Right now, my car has a great idle, makes 30 MPG, and has 20-22 in-Hg vacuum.

Everything points to big cams: I'm making more power higher in the rpm band, and I'm making less bottom end power...

	Peak HP rpm	RPM % difference	Peak TQ rpm	RPM % difference
Rated:	6,400		4,000
Actual:	7,400	+15.2	3,750	-6.4%

If anything, the torque number seems within range at 117.5 lb-ft at the ground, which would be...

4th gear correction: 100.77 TQ to the ground.

Possible TQ losses:
15% power loss: 116 crank TQ
20% power loss: 121 crank TQ
25% power loss: 126 crank TQ
30% power loss: 131 crank TQ

Right -- less torque than stock & more HP at a more narrow and higher power band points to aftermarket cams.

[BigMike]

This is power at the Dyno rollers. Even when you take away the 1.166 4th gear multiplication, this engine is still putting 148.6 HP to the ground.

Whoops, I messed up with this calculation. I calculated as a percent difference rather than a difference of ratios. Here are the proper assumption numbers:

4th gear correction: 128.99 HP to the ground.

Possible HP losses (4th gear correction included):
15% power loss: 148 crank HP
20% power loss: 156 crank HP
25% power loss: 161 crank HP
30% power loss: 169 crank HP

That looks a lot better. Now I am looking at probably 155 - 165 crank HP, which seems far more believable.