I'd prefer to bolt on than weld on. Assuming i center it and use the same bolts, nuts, and washers, balancing should not be an issue?Originally Posted by dn010
Posts: 841
I'd prefer to bolt on than weld on. Assuming i center it and use the same bolts, nuts, and washers, balancing should not be an issue?
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 2,405
My VIN: 01049
Why? Welding will be a permanent solution that can't suffer from timing drift should bolts loosen.
-Mike
My engine twists my frame.
1981 DeLorean, Carb LS4 swap completed
1999 Corvette, cam/headers/intake manifold, 400 rwhp
2005 Elise, stock
2016 Chevy Cruze
Posts: 841
The main reason is that I don't have welding experience, nor do I have a welder. So I would have to get another person involved which I would prefer not to do.
My solution would be to use locktite and correct tightening to prevent timing drift.
Location: Florida: Pinellas County
Posts: 2,110
My VIN: 5003 Never placed Concourse
Club(s): (DCF)
I bolted mine using loctite as well. I did not weld so that I can move the wheel in the future should I need to relocate my sensor. Using all the same hardware and locating the holes precisely, I do not have any balance issues nor have the bolts ever loosened.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-----Dan B.
Location: CLE/PHX
Posts: 2,592
My VIN: 5646,5080, 5880, 10234, 3639, 2518, 10586, 1538
Yeah... dec 22nd. Right around when Christianity obstructed me from productivity. Couple that with a Hokey religions and ancient weapons in theaters and that about sums up the last few weeks.
Location: CLE/PHX
Posts: 2,592
My VIN: 5646,5080, 5880, 10234, 3639, 2518, 10586, 1538
We meter mailed the last fitting usps to the jeggs address the same week you picked up the initial components. I knew you were in a hurry and wanted the parts asap so we had everything minus the JIC shipped next day after payment.
A "road map" on how I would do this and or would expect it to be done seems redundant. My method for this process is the only one that matters. I won't waste my time or breath on the subject once an opinionated discussion starts. As soon as I noted we were polling the community at large for advice on how to finish this project after I pretty much already spelled it out I just stepped back and started monitoring the discussion to prevent any major disasters.
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 2,405
My VIN: 01049
Okay, but why? I'd like to understand they physics behind why those choices aren't good enough.
-Mike
My engine twists my frame.
1981 DeLorean, Carb LS4 swap completed
1999 Corvette, cam/headers/intake manifold, 400 rwhp
2005 Elise, stock
2016 Chevy Cruze
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 2,405
My VIN: 01049
Actually, nevermind; I give up on this thread.
-Mike
My engine twists my frame.
1981 DeLorean, Carb LS4 swap completed
1999 Corvette, cam/headers/intake manifold, 400 rwhp
2005 Elise, stock
2016 Chevy Cruze
Posts: 841
Josh, would you please pm me tracking number and package description? I checked the warehouse and still don't have the fitting or the blow off valves dump pipes.
Also, would you please pm me the instructions if you dont want to post them here? There are still loose ends to tie up. Thanks again.
Posts: 841
Mike, I am guessing that the reason the idle speed motor has to be as close to the throttle body as possible is due to the response time when opening and closing the throttle blades. Most idle speed motors on newer vehicles follow this rule. The extra vacuum hose must cause a slight delay in response time and therefore smoother transition is not as easy to achieve.
I'm also guessing that the stepper motor design is more desired for the same reason; the originals will most likely work, but the updated designs provide better performance.
Reply With Quote
