Originally posted by Patrick: So you believe those to be current pictures and the ancient carphone is still hanging there... along with the aftermarket cassette deck and this equally old radar detector?
And I realize some Fieros never had it done, but looking at the air filter snorkel and the decklid weatherstripping, I'd say this Fiero was pre-recall.
I'm really curious now how old all those images are.
Well, just because the things are there, doesn't mean they're used. The 93K miles could have been put on in the first 15 years. Radar detectors are illegal here anyway, so it wouldn't matter how old it was, unless you had it turned on so you could get a ticket for it.
The air intake tube is obviously aftermarket, and it looks like a braided hose was used to connect the PCV to the tube instead of at the air filter housing. Perhaps the recall was done on the car, and then later the owner re-installed a piece of weatherstrip? Certainly a possibility, given there are obvious aftermarket things on the car, and it's something that's been done many times on here before.
I grabbed one of the pictures and the metadata in it claims it was taken Oct 13 2015, on a Nikon D3000, at r/3.5, with an 18mm lens, no flash, 200 ISO, and 1/30th second exposure time. The Nikon D3000 was released in 2009, so even if the date inside the image is a lie, it's unlikely the pictures are older than 2009 at least.
I grabbed one of the pictures and the metadata in it claims it was taken Oct 13 2015, on a Nikon D3000, at r/3.5, with an 18mm lens, no flash, 200 ISO, and 1/30th second exposure time. The Nikon D3000 was released in 2009, so even if the date inside the image is a lie, it's unlikely the pictures are older than 2009 at least.
I'm surprised the metadata is still available on these images (after they've been re-sized etc), but that was a good idea to check for it.
Call me suspicious, but I wonder if the metadata can be altered/faked.
Originally posted by Patrick: I'm surprised the metadata is still available on these images (after they've been re-sized etc), but that was a good idea to check for it.
Call me suspicious, but I wonder if the metadata can be altered/faked.
The metadata can be faked, for sure. But if it's fake, someone went through a whole lot of work to specify all the details, so I doubt it is.
Isn't it more likely that this is an estate sale, and the car has been sitting in a showroom for the last 20 years? I'm thinking that the owner liked his car phone....(I liked mine back in the day)....and now that he is gone, the widow is just going to get rid of the '....... thing'.
The metadata can be faked, for sure. But if it's fake, someone went through a whole lot of work to specify all the details, so I doubt it is.
I checked the three images that I had downloaded... just to make sure the same metadata hadn't been given to all of them. It was different for each image, so I guess they're legit.
I have similar to these but they are only 1/2" thick. I was worried about hitting the deck lid as mentioned. They are made of aluminum and are CNC'd... I drafted up the drawing and gave it to a friend of mine to cut them out. They are gasket matched also.. I love'em. My thought was not only increase the volume in the plenum for torque due to the longer runner length, I felt that the added height would help the air flow in that tight bend area where they insert.. Smoother transitioning down the tubes, the better the flow.
------------------
[This message has been edited by unboundmo (edited 10-28-2015).]
I have similar to these but they are only 1/2" thick. I was worried about hitting the deck lid as mentioned. They are made of aluminum and are CNC'd... I drafted up the drawing and gave it to a friend of mine to cut them out.
Sweet. Might your friend be interested in making more? If so, could he make them thicker than 1/2"?
The thicker the spacers can be made (without clearance problems), the better. What we need to do is figure out an effective way of actually measuring clearance between the top of the entire upper intake plenum and the underside of our decklids. It's quite possible I imagine for this clearance to be somewhat different from Fiero to Fiero.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 10-27-2015).]
Need to get terms correct here, that does not increase plenum size, it increases runner length, I would go the opposite route like the 3.4 did, like the Fiero needs more bottom end at the sacrifice of top end. I do like the idea of phenolic spacers/gaskets as I hate the heat my intake puts off. That alone would be worth more than any spacer.
Edit to add: Draw out a design, WTF, you hand them a gasket, done deal, simple.
[This message has been edited by sardonyx247 (edited 10-28-2015).]
I don't think he'll be interested.. He did it at work and was all secret about it.. I wish he could do other things for us too... But... Anyway.
I thought that if I did it in a CAD program, he could just transfer the file to what he needed.. And upload it to the CNC. No extra work for him really... Discreet at the work place... Besides.. I wanted some fun in making them too!
I actually have a 3.4L swap...with some work.... Is that what you meant to offset sacrifice?
I always thought that the plenum is the total of the three parts? Not just the top... Cubic volume of air is more with the spacers.. Like a throttle body spacer?
[This message has been edited by unboundmo (edited 10-28-2015).]
What "route" is that? I'm unfamiliar with the intake on the 3.4 engine and how it differs from the Fiero's 2.8 intake.
The 3.4 intake did away with the top intake and went with dual plenums, thus making the runners 2/3rds as long. PIP won't work right now for me, google 3.4 intake
Originally posted by unboundmo: I actually have a 3.4L swap...with some work.... Is that what you meant to offset sacrifice?
I always thought that the plenum is the total of the three parts? Not just the top... Cubic volume of air is more with the spacers.. Like a throttle body spacer?
He meant the top plenum on the F-body 3.4 is a Y shape, rathere than a big rectangle type piece.
Yes, the plenum volume is total volume of the intake manifold, from heads to throttle plate.
In talking the top intake portion of the plenum, I'd like to take Chris's concept from West Coast Fiero .... http://www.westcoastfiero.c...ake_manifold_60.html .... And make the center portion a rectangle instead of a round tube body.. A little higher than stock for more volume and with the larger throttle body they use.. But then CNC the cut graphics (Fiero name logo and the grooves for the top ) to make it look back to somewhat stock.
make the center portion a rectangle instead of a round tube body.. A little higher than stock for more volume...
I suspect if you wanted to do that along with using the spacers, that you'd probably have clearance problems with your decklid for sure (depending on the thickness of the spacers of course).
Using the spacers gives you added room under the plenum. Why not drop the plenum floor instead (as was done with the custom plenum pictured earlier)?
I figured since the engrave risers are about an inch thick from the start of the thread, I could take the difference on the top portion of the plenum and my already 1/2" risers.... Going for more room at the bottom takes away from my hand reaching in for fine tune adjustments on my adjustable fuel regulator... But I could be wrong
[This message has been edited by unboundmo (edited 10-28-2015).]
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1098194 I didn't check to make sure the file was scaled corectly but if anyone wants to have one machined, here's a file that could be used.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 10-28-2015).]
Many of us have retrofitted the decklid recall strip. Maybe he did, too. With aftermarket intake snorkels, other mods may need be done, ie, the rebreather tube. I see a braided rebreather tube coming in just in front of the throttlebody. The pics could have been taken last decade or last week.
Edited to explain that I'm on a little cell phone and can't see the whole page and have it legible. I didn't see page 2. My comment was in responce to Patrick's October post about age of the photos.
[This message has been edited by fierofool (edited 03-31-2016).]
Edited to explain that I'm on a little cell phone and can't see the whole page and have it legible. I didn't see page 2. My comment was in responce to Patrick's October post about age of the photos.
Charlie, this thread is five months old and that car on eBay is long gone. I bumped this thread just to talk about those intake spacers.
When I posted and there was something different above than what I posted about, I expanded the screen to see the date of your post. That's when I discovered page 2 and the dates. My phone is small enough to fit between the base of my thumb and the tip of my finger, thus a very small screen.
I grabbed one of the pictures and the metadata in it claims it was taken Oct 13 2015, on a Nikon D3000, at r/3.5, with an 18mm lens, no flash, 200 ISO, and 1/30th second exposure time. The Nikon D3000 was released in 2009, so even if the date inside the image is a lie, it's unlikely the pictures are older than 2009 at least.
You would be correct. Notice the reflection in the mirror. It's a digital camera:
Notice the reflection in the mirror. It's a digital camera...
Not that it matters a great deal... but how can you tell that this is a "digital" camera from the reflection in the mirror. Looks to me much like any 35mm SLR camera from the 1980's.
Not that it matters a great deal... but how can you tell that this is a "digital" camera from the reflection in the mirror. Looks to me much like any 35mm SLR camera from the 1980's.
Modern SLRs and old SLRs look pretty much the same from the front. The Nikon D3000 is a digital SLR. Given the quality of the photo, and the metadata in it, along with fact that scanning photographs tends to result in obvious flaws in the digital image, it's pretty clear.
With the spacer the result is purely aesthetic and the result is a restrictive plenum with a slightly higher look.
------------------ " THE BLACK PARALYZER" -87GT 3800SC Series III engine, custom ZZP /Frozen Boost Intercooler setup, 3.4" Pulley, Northstar TB, LS1 MAF, 3" Spintech/Hedman Exhaust, Autolite 104's, MSD wires, Custom CAI, 4T65eHD w. custom axles, HP Tuners VCM Suite. "THE COLUSSUS" 87GT - ALL OUT 3.4L Turbocharged engine, Garrett Hybrid Turbo, MSD ign., modified TH125H " ON THE LOOSE WITHOUT THE JUICE "
This is all very interesting... but I resurrected this thread to discuss the intake spacers!
quote
Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua:
With the spacer the result is purely aesthetic and the result is a restrictive plenum with a slightly higher look.
A "higher" upper intake is exactly what I'm after...
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
I'd rather run a secondary throttle body as mentioned HERE.
Using spacers as discussed in this current thread would allow me to run a tube from the secondary throttle body to the underside of the plenum... which is an option that wasn't available with the upper plenum mounted in it's usual stock location.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 10-02-2016).]
With the spacer the result is purely aesthetic and the result is a restrictive plenum with a slightly higher look.
No. It increases plenum volume and makes the transition from the upper plenum smoother by adding a short "straight" after the curve, which splits the very tight ~120 degree transition into a 90 degree transition and then a 30 degree transition. While it won't give any huge power increases, it is not "purely aesthetic" either.
No. It increases plenum volume and makes the transition from the upper plenum smoother by adding a short "straight" after the curve, which splits the very tight ~120 degree transition into a 90 degree transition and then a 30 degree transition. While it won't give any huge power increases, it is not "purely aesthetic" either.
My point was that spacer or not you still have the same size intake passages to deal with. I can understand that the air flow from top to middle will be smoother but will the flow increase? Will adding the spacer really translate into any power increase or just shift the power curve a bit? I don't have the answer but do agree that the difference should be small.
------------------ " THE BLACK PARALYZER" -87GT 3800SC Series III engine, custom ZZP /Frozen Boost Intercooler setup, 3.4" Pulley, Northstar TB, LS1 MAF, 3" Spintech/Hedman Exhaust, Autolite 104's, MSD wires, Custom CAI, 4T65eHD w. custom axles, HP Tuners VCM Suite. "THE COLUSSUS" 87GT - ALL OUT 3.4L Turbocharged engine, Garrett Hybrid Turbo, MSD ign., modified TH125H " ON THE LOOSE WITHOUT THE JUICE "
Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua: My point was that spacer or not you still have the same size intake passages to deal with. I can understand that the air flow from top to middle will be smoother but will the flow increase? Will adding the spacer really translate into any power increase or just shift the power curve a bit? I don't have the answer but do agree that the difference should be small.
Yes, the flow will increase, but only maybe 1-2 CFM at most, and perhaps not necessarily in the lift range of the camshaft. At the very least, having the larger plenum volume will slightly improve throttle response. But yes, beyond that, the difference is unlikely to be enough that one would "feel" it in the driver seat, without additional changes.
Modern SLRs and old SLRs look pretty much the same from the front. The Nikon D3000 is a digital SLR. Given the quality of the photo, and the metadata in it, along with fact that scanning photographs tends to result in obvious flaws in the digital image, it's pretty clear.
Most stopped scanning photo's years ago. and use a made for this jig that holds the DSLR and you snap a photo of a photo.. no idea if it was,, but just throwing it out there..
It was different for each image, so I guess they're legit. 
