18psi

iTrader: (76)

I went from 9.5 to 9.0 on the '00 and felt a difference when I went back to stock for the couple days I had to smog. It was slower.

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

"Basemap" indicates not stock ECU so is not exactly valid for comparison. E for Effort though

See? That's what I'm worried about. 8.6 seems like too much of a compromise for me as I'd still like the motor to make good power with my boost apparatus is not attached.

OP may not care as he has the magic sticker.

williams805

iTrader: (2)

Exactly what you said. I don't have to run completely without boost.

I've heard a rumor from two different sources that the CA smog laws may be changing next year. I haven't done the research yet but kind of sounds like they will not be doing sniffer test anymore if all the readiness test are passed. I'm still unclear on what years this pertain to. All OBD-2, '96 and on? I also don't know if we will still need to pass a visual.

Does anyone have good info on this? I'm going to "search n00b" the inter-webs now.

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

If you find something, please post as this is quite relevant to my interests. I'm sure they aren't going to do anything crazy like get rid of the CARB EO# system, but I find it intriguing none the less.

codrus

AB2289

Introducing AB2289, California

Basically it does two things: Eliminate the sniffer test for MY2000 and newer vehicles (still has to pass the OBD2 test, the visual test, the gas cap test, and anything else I'm forgetting) and reshuffle the certification levels of the smog stations in some complex way. MY1999 and older still have to pass the sniffer test.

End result is that smogging many cars becomes simpler and faster (possibly cheaper), but smogging older cars may become harder and less convenient if there are fewer stations available with the sniffer equipment and/or appropriate STAR rating.

--Ian

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

If only they would ditch the visual test and keep the sniffer. The sniffer does what they want without people having to cheat, passing the sniffer is easier and you'd probably end up with more cars that pollute less the other 700 something days.

williams805

iTrader: (2)

I talked to a buddy of mine who is a smog tech. Basicly said what you said.
No sniffer for 2000 and later. All readiness must be passed. Previously we could have one or two that were not yet passed.
Still must pass visual and function tests.

I asked why they are doing this way and why that year cut. His reply was that all gasoline (not sure about diesel) vehicles under 14,000 lbs., year 2000 and newer have the ability to run the readiness tests. Prior to that, some vehicles were not required to have this moniter system in place.
The reason he gave is, they believe the car runs more strenuous tests than the sniffer does.
Sometimes if you have a weak cat, you could clear all codes, then go drive until most moniters had passed. Bring your car in and pass smog even though you may have a MIL for inefficient catalyst when your vehicle actually completed the test.

Oh well. I was hoping the new laws would have some positive affect on aftermarket parts. Wishful thinking.

codrus

Yeah, it's basically unheard for a modern car to fail the sniffer test without having a readiness test show failed/not-ready, so they decided to skip the sniffer test.

They don't cut out the visual test because otherwise it's trivial to make a car that's only clean when it's being smog-tested.

--Ian

williams805

iTrader: (2)

williams805

iTrader: (2)

The engine is still at the machine shop. I will be calling tomorrow for an update. In the mean time I have more questions.

I've come to the conclusion that a turbo will be in my future. I'd like to take advantage of having my oil pan off.
Question 1) If I weld in a -10 male fitting, can I get a cap for it to just block it off? I can't seem to find anything. If I cannot, I'll have to go with a npt/hose barb jb welded in.
2) Where should I put it? 2" from the pan rail and as far forward as possible? Or 2" from rail in closer to the motor mount?

Next questions are about coolant reroute. Looks like most preach M-tuned. It seems to work for tons of you hardcore track day guys and I'm not arguing that. My concern it that the T-stat is remote mounted and dead headed in a hose several inches from flow. To me this seems like a bad idea, just like remote mounting a coolant temp or oil temp gauge. By the time the coolant is hot enough to open the thermostat, the rest of the coolant in the engine would be hotter.
3) Is there a concern here, or am I picking fly **** out of the pepper?
I kind of answered my own question knowing this is track proven but I like to know why and make my own decisions.
It seems like keeping the t-stat in the head like the Begi spacer is a way to go.
4) Why do people prefer the M-tuned to Begi?

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

1) I think I have a -10 cap, I'll let you know tomorrow aftet work.

2) I ran mine as far forward as I could.



As for the re-route stuff, iono.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

it really depends on your turbo setup, and if you have a/c, etc

here's mine
https://www.miataturbo.net/build-thr...-67328/page12/

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

I just finished installing the M-Tuned reroute this weekend. I popped the 'air jiggler' out of the thermostat and it left a +/- 1/16" or so hole for bypass. The engine heats up much quicker and temp stabilizes within a couple degrees of the thermostat rating. Lag and spiking seems to be a non issue, at least in my configuration. I'm looking at temps on an aftermarket gauge plus my Scangauge II connected to the stock ECU.

I wouldn't hesitate to install this again, but I'm lazy and would wait until the engine was out of the car. Working behind the head is a biiiiiiiiiiitch. My initial plan was to go BEGI + KIA neck + GM hose = capitalist victory, but the M-Tumed came up used and cheap.

williams805

iTrader: (2)

What length of hose do you have connecting the outlet of the head to the t-stat?

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

I wouldnt want a male AN fitting welded to the engine. Too high of a change of damaging it so that it would leak and you'd end up having to cut it off and replace it. NPT threaded insert welded in is the way to go, unless you're in not america, then use BSPT.

I'm running the begi and GM hose setup because I didnt want the thermostat to be lower than whatever came before it in the coolant routing. I'm still trying to get it to not leak but I know the issue now and I'll be fixing it when the engine comes out this winter.

williams805

iTrader: (2)

Good point.

What is the issue you have figured out in case I go that way? Bolts too long?

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

My coolant sensor for the gauge cluster and/or its adapter fittings are hitting a bolt on the back of the head before the spacer and neck are really pulled tight. I'm going to fix it with a different gauge sender and/or adapters.

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

About 6~7". I had concerns as well, but it seriously ain't no thang. I got my kit used and it turns out the PO cut the long hose from the thermostat to the radiator a little shorter than I'd like, so I'll be replacing it.

curly

iTrader: (25)

In order to get my spacer/thermostat/housing assembly in between the firewall and head, I had to remove the brake booster line, unbolt the ppf at the transmission, and jack the rear of the transmission up as much as possible. Plenty of room then, and it went in without leaking. Otherwise it's an absolute bitch and there is a 90% chance of leakage.

The coolant sensor for the gauge cluster shouldn't be on the spacer, it's sideways in the head before the spacer. Unless you're referring to the green ECU sensor.

Leafy

iTrader: (1)

No, post a picture. The temp sensor for the gauge cluster is a 1/8 npt sensor. I adapted from the 3/8 NPT on the spacer to it. I dont see where else it could go. I do know that the bolt its hitting on does go to a coolant passage but I believe the thread is metric or bspp.