RTz

There is no spline count on the engine. The splines are in the clutch disc.

I think you're misunderstanding. If you make profound claims, especially if they contradict popular experience, its only natural for people to ask for some substance... somthing to lend credibility. Its not an unreasonable request. In fact, it would be unreasonable for you to expect us to just 'swallow it' brainlessly. Hope that makes sense.

Not that I've been told.

That is precisely the problem, Six... your statements are a bit empty. We'd all be happy to entertain your thoughts, but you need to give us some firm ground.

Tough to swallow, isn't it? My EJ22 measures pretty close to 28" 'cover-to-cover'. This twin cammer is 32.5" (sorry, can't credit photo)... It would be really nice to have a confirmation on the 22".

Well, now... that's an interesting little tidbit.

Note to self: Add Jon to my ban list

We're working on it

240 and 280 carry same cam specs. As far as the head is concerned, both oiling systems are interchangeable.

Amen. Ever see a U-haul behind a hearse?... me neither.

I've been holding off on this in effort to report accurate info. Sorry for the delay... Wolf has gone the 'external' route for wide-band processing, meaning there's an external 'converter box'. 1) All early ECU's may be returned to Wolf for a firmware upgrade and converter free of charge. 2) All new purchases require the converter be purchased separately, at approx $125 US.

Stunning car. Probably my favorite Dime... . . Unfortunately, this is the only pic I have of the rear suspension... Epperly was responsible for the 4 link, yes?

Thanks for sharing those!

Wife and I just got back from this motion picture. Twenty minutes in, we were ready to walk out. Decided to hang in there instead. What a mistake. I've seen worse, but not very damn many.

I wasn't able to cross-reference those. Maybe call a GM dealer and ask if those supersede or have been. You can do that. However, Strotter mentioned dead-heading the GM regulator. The most obvious advantage is reducing the possibilty of an undersized return. He may have other thoughts as well... maybe he'll chime. Either way you do it, I don't see any conflict.

Yes. Yes. A few items... 1) There is a '15 psi' regulator built-in (red circle)... Supply on the left, return on the right. 2) The only potential issue that I see is the size of the return side. It needs to be large enough to flow all unused fuel at low demand (such as idle). The internal orifice's are pretty small, so it may take a little massaging to make that happen. 3) The regulator is nominal at 15psi, but this specific regulator is 'all over the place'. It will probably require some attention simply becuase I think your potential HP out ways the flow capacity of your injectors. 4) Which brings us to... which injectors do you have? The most common ones I see are #5235206. See red circle... Those are rated for 55lbs/hr at 13 PSI The 9C1 police cars came with 65lb/hr at 13PSI There are several others if you dig. 5) I understand all these Rochester injectors are perfectly happy at 30-32 PSI. And some of them are good to around 70 PSI. I see no reason you couldn't take the stock Datsun regulator and piggyback it on to the GM regulator (essentially overriding it). 36-38 PSI *might* work just fine with those injectors, and you're probably going to need it.

The simple answer to your question is yes, you can regulate the stock EFI pump down. BUT, the stock pump is built to recirculate... if you allow it to dead-head, it wont survive. Those common non-recirculating carb regulators are a no-no in this case.

Yes, I was informed WB functionality is ready. I have some questions on implementation so we're discussing details.

I agree. If an engine is frame mounted with suitable reinforcement, I can think of no significant drawback.

1mm is just under .040"... the size of a healthy sparkplug gap. There's probably more variability than that from one chassis to another.

Git 'R Done

Could be used as anti-squat? Got it, and I agree. I had assumed your were referring to spherical bearing's. I don't believe there would be any binding with spherical's. Subtle use of toe changes are often desirable. I probably would'nt go far out of my way to have dynamic toe, but I'm not opposed to it if 'comes with the package' and the curve is reasonable. It does say something to that effect, but its related to bushing orientation/durometer, which wouldn't be applicable here. I'm 'arguing' simply becuase I see it as a reasonable alternative and based on similar packaging. Unfortunately, I'm not conviced of the strut side load's being a factor that can be reasoanbly reduced with control arm design, but its outside my ability to either argue or prove. Am I bugging you yet?

Perfect! That's exactly it. I need to learn how to write.

No effort to control strut side loading. I'm game, lets talk. If all points where replaced with spherical's, what binding would there be?