datsun40146

I found this http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=103873 Look at the pic that Zhadman posted. This is more or less what I was thinking I would do. With the exception of milling the bumpers down thinner so they hug the body more. What do you guys think of them?

I know that I could fill it w/ fiberglass and then extend it down to the dam. However the car is mostly already underpaint and I can't weld on it anymore. What I need is something like a filler peice or a aim dam that comes up and fills that area.

I have shaved the marker lights, side trim, headlight buckets lines and the rear bumper on my 280z. I also swapped out the large front bumper for an astro-van grill similar to brian510's car. This was done to complement the shaving work done to the rest of the car and for a cleaner look. However now that I have removed the front bumper I am left with two indentions in between the valance and the body, you know where the bumper bolted to. Is there any way to smooth that out, I don't want to use filler b/c of the air pushing on that area I am afraid of it cracking. That wan the car is about to come out of paint and I dont want to change anything now. I can't really weld it because one cannot weld fiberglass (air dams material) to steel. Does anyone out there have any ideas on how to solve that problem? Other than MSA's front body kit, which I don't really have a great liking for, and I have all ready invested in the van grill. Thanks for anyone's ideas, I am open to suggestions and open discussion.

Any Idea on what you plan to do?

This restoration is great, but it was posted here about a month ago.

The you was refeering to you team nissan. There was no "hurt" intended however, I was just giving you a hard time. You bring up a very valid point though as far as the 215 in concerned. It doesn't matter which motor we use because were always going to get stuck by that single plane crank. BTW the 215 is going to have major problems with the valve train at the levels we want it to rev. So I think that anything that is SOHC, hell even just DOHC should be considered. Push rod motors just can't sustain 10K rpms.

Well if you really don't like the 215 and the idea of building that. Then I would advise you to take a look at the 84-85 MB 380SE, 81-83 MB 380 SEL, and 82-83 MB SEC. All of these cars came with a 3.8L thats only 231 cc. That could be destroked and i'm am sure that MB has plans or a single plane crank...mabye. Either way its a good motor, its in similar size to the buick 215 and its about 30 years younger. EDIT: It would seem that this motor puts out about 155 Hp in america and over 200 when the motor is overseas. Also this motor doesn't seem to have ANY aftermarket performace parts ANYWHERE. I think the motor it self could be bought cheaply but modifying it for power just woundn't work. However I won't delete this because it is a small V8 and is good information.

Well they won 2 F1 titles with it and Rover used it for well over 30 years. Granted Rover isn't known for its realiabilty but they have ALOT of build quality issues. In my personal opinion and take this with a grain of salt. Is that the 215 when properly built would be a good motor. It would NOT set the world on fire in terms of HP out-put, nor would it be the cheapest motor to create. But you can't deny the "cool" factor and that BRAAAAP noise coming from the tail pipe.

http://www.yeesjob.com/v8engine.htm See if that don't tickle you fancy....

Ok I just read through several articles about the Repco V8 215 and in alot of them it mentions that SOHC heads were used. How did they modify the push-rod design to a OHC design. I know that F1 teams have HUGE budgets but if they could do it, then so could we. The articles I have been looking over said that the motor they built put out around 310 HP, and they used many off the self parts to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repco

Frist of all Thanks alot to ZROSSA you made my day. I found a ton of information about the 215 they ran. BTW you were right on your history. The beginning of the new 3-liter Formula was thought to favor Ferrari and their V12 engine but Jack Brabham and Ron Tauranac had other ideas. Their solution was to take a light spaceframe chassis and marry it to an Oldsmobile based Repco V8 engine. Repco's was a parts supplier and manufacturer in Australia that was heavily involved with the Tasman Series. Providing modified engines for the Brabham Tasman cars they were looking for a replacement for the Climax engines that they were currently using. Oldsmobile had abandoned the all-aluminum block that they had been developing for a new Buick passenger car and this proved a good starting place for the new Repco engines. Brabham hearing of these developments contracted Repco to provide him with some 3-liter Formula 1 engines. In the hands of ex-Cooper engine man John Judd the Repco V8 would produce 311 bhp which was less than the new Ferrari's 360 bhp. But a race car is more than just its engine and Ron Tauranac who had been working with Brabham since his Cooper days designed a chassis that was simple yet light. The multi-tubular spaceframe was also easy to fix after the inevitable accident. A big advantage for the new car was that it could go the distance on 35 gallons. The car won four races in a row and partnered with Denis Hulme, Brabham won his third World Championship and the first one to win it in his own car

IMO, this car is a bit rusty. However b/c it it mostly already stripped down you know where the problem areas are. (Price sheet below, my estimates) The dog legs Will have to be replaced. My hood was banged in the EXACT same place, while that damage is fixable it would cost you more in body work. The roll has to have work done to it anyway if you are going to shave the bumpers (you should ) So that won't be anything you didn't have to fix already. The wheel archs can be patched there is no need to replace the whole thing. Now that rear deck worries me, if that much rust has come thorugh you can bet there is a quite a nit underneath that ready to come through. The floor pans look like they have some damage to them, it doesn't look too bad you may be able to just patch them. From the pictures it looks like it was hit on the passenger side door area next to the lock. That body work will be need to be redone or the metal replaced. Thats all I can see right now so you cost sheet is below. This assumes you can weld and have some ablity to work metal, if not the triple the cost I give you. Doglegs-75.00 USD New Hood -150 (for a good one) Wheel Arches - 20.00 or so depending on if you can get away with a patch Roll Pan- I would buy a parts car and cut the good pan off it it. The same applies for the wheel arch area. This could cut you cost and fab time. To be safe i'll quote 150 to fix this. The rear deck- Dunno on this one but the panel will run you a bit of change, this is where the parts car would be nice. I'll say 200 to remove and replace the whole thing. Floor pans- Patched -20.00 replaced 200.00 Body work- Dunno on this one w/o seeing the car close up. But a round a bout estimate I would 2,000 for JUST the body work no paint. Figure another 1500 to 2000 to get it under paint if you use a cheap paint. By my estimates you can expext to spend 5115.00 get the cars body in good shape. and that assumes you can weld and farm out the paint work.

Does anyone have the March 1985 ed. of Hot Rod magazine? They build a Buick 215 in that and later issues. I have a small bit of it here, but I would like to read the whole thing, so if someone has a copy let me know. Have you priced a Chevy aluminum small-block lately? Whether procured from factory or aftermarket sources, expect to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $2500 to $3000. And that merely gets you a bare block. No crank, rods, pistons, camshaft, or valvegear. Not to mention the aluminum cylinder heads, which'll run around $1000, bare. No wonder most of us make do with the old "iron horses." Well under the purchase that way for Chevy bare block, you can build an affordable aluminum V8 with displacements up to 305 cubic inches. Unbelievable? Not really. We're speaking of the 1961-'63 Buick/Olds 215 aluminum motor, an often overlooked granddaddy of the Buick V6 that unfortunately was about 15 years ahead of its time. With over 3/4 million built, blocks are relatively easy to locate at the local boneyard. Since the motors had castiron cylinder liners, corrosion is not near by the problem it was on the linerless Vegas. While it's true that parts on the out-of-production motor are not exactly plentiful, many parts from more modern motors can be substituted with little or no reworking. Two individuals - Phil Baker (Baker's Auto Repair, 19552 40th Pl. NE, Seattle, WA 98155,

Here is some more 215 information The original 215 aluminum V8 appeared in the Buick Special and Skylark models, while the Old's version was offered in the Olds F-85, Cutlass, and Jetfire models as well as the Pontiac Tempest. The Buick version used only five bolts per cylinder to mount its heads, and the heads had a combustion chamber following contemporary Buick practice. The heads were also angled "upward" to create a "flat top" look common to Buick engines of the day. Buick altered compression ratios via piston height and design. You can bolt a Buick head to an Olds block. Olds engineers went their own route with cylinder head design, preferring a Chevy small block-like combustion chamber and an extra bolt (six in all) around each cylinder to mount the head. The valve cover was also more conventional looking. (Ken Costello built his first MGB V8 using an Olds engine picked up in Belgium !). The valve train is also different. Old used different heads with the same pistons to produce higher compression ratios. An Olds head will not work on a Buick block because of the extra head bolts. For performance applications, you'll want either 829 heads (10.25:1 C.R. for '61-'62 4 bbl auto and manual cars, '63 4 bbl manual cars), or 534 heads (10.75:1 '63 4-bbl automatics). Two bbl heads (No. 746) have low compression ratios and aren't suitable for any performance work. (http://www.aluminumv8.com/tech/tech.htm) Comp Ration Follow the the order the heads are placed in 37cc Buick 38cc Olds 43cc Olds 51cc Olds 54cc Buick Piston- Con Rod- Comp Height- HEAD- Comp Ratio Vega -Chevy -1.480 -11.03, 10.77, 10.24, 9.5, 9.27 3.0 Ford -Chevy -1.515 11.79, 11.53, 11, 10.26, 10.03 267 -Chevy -1.540 10.57, 10.31, 9.78, 9.04, 8.81 221 Ford -Chevy -1.580 13.65, 13.39, 12.86, 12.12, 11.84 3.0 Ford- Chevy -1.535 12.29, 12.02, 11.5, 10.76, 10.53 Vega - 215 1.480 9.22, 8.96, 8.43, 7.69, 7.46 267 Chevy- 215- 1.540< (Dish) 8.76, 8.5, 7.97, 7.23, 7 221 Ford -215- 1.580< 11.84, 11.58, 11.05, 10.31, 10.08 3.0 Ford- 215 -1.535< 10.48, 10.22, 9.69, 8.95, 8.72

I just got off the phone with D and D fabrications who were very helpfull by the way. Anyway I brought up that I would like to create a high revving Buick/Rover 215 V8. I explained to him that I would like to destroke the motor to 3 liters and have a single plane crank made to fit. To which he replied well you can do just about anything if you thorw enough 100 dollar bills at it. However as a more realistic answer he mentioned that the bonneville salt flat guys use a destroked 215 to complete so those parts are out there. As far as the single plane crank is concerned he was sure that one could be made given enough time and money. Head designs could be used from several different places. He said that and I found that Volvo (yes family sedan/wagon people) valves, would fit into the 310 aluminum heads to increase flow. Also, Chevy Carrera rods (300, 310, 340) were quite a bit stronger than any of the others and can be used. I must confess this guy has ALOT more knowledge that I can hope to have for some time. I think that the 215 with some mods could be the motor we have been looking for. IE 3 liters of so, short stroke, high flow heads ect.

I found some usefull information from vwvortex.com about the downside of "big brake kits" that being the added weight of said kit effects the unsprung weight of the car. This guy has some calculations that prove that those effects are minimal. I copied the page but here is the link. http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2536336 Over the last few years on the Vortex there have been a multitude of posts arguing about the benefits and disadvantages of big brake kits. The most popular “disadvantage” is that a larger diameter rotor means it has a bigger rotational inertia, or moment of inertia. What this means in laymen’s terms is that a, say, because a 12” rotor is bigger, it “saps” more power from your engine than, say, a stock 9.4” set up. This is indeed true. However, how big a factor is it? I was doing some project work on this kind of thing so I decided to diverge a little and do something that might show me and those of you who are interested something pretty interesting. If you couldn't be bothered with the technical explanation, scroll down to "conclusion". I sort of rushed through this stuff, so if there are calculation errors, please don't kill me, I'm just trying to help, educate and illustrate The basic equation to calculate the moment of Inertia of a solid (as opposed to “floating” disc and assumed to be a constant-thickness disc) is: Where m is the mass of your disc, and d is the diameter of your disc. To interpret this, it means that the moment of Inertia increases with the square of diameter. This looks like a really scary thing! But again, we ask, what does it actually mean? More useful than the simple moment of Inertia equation for demonstration is the Kinetic Energy (KE) which is required to rotate this disc to a specific speed, due to moment of Inertia. This is given by: where is angular velocity of the disc, ie. how quickly it is required to spin at a given point. What this means is that the energy required to rotate the disc at that velocity is a factor of the square of velocity, and the square of diameter, as before. What we will assume: Car weighs 1100kg Car has 16” wheels which aren’t coming into the equation Car is on a flat road 9.4” rotor weighs around 3kg Decent 12” rotor weighs around 5kg (this is pretty conservative) If we take a test subject, let’s say a 12” non-floating rotor weighing in at 5kg, we calculate: I = 0.0581kg/m^2 And the energy at a car velocity of 100km/h (62mph) is KE = 412.175 joules Since the measure of energy that the engine puts out is simplified to be the energy your car has at a particular speed thanks to the energy the engine transferred, we can actually go and find out exactly how big a difference this EXTREMELY SUPER SIZED OVERKILL TRUCKLOAD MOTHER DISC WILL MAKE! The graph below shows the ratio of the Kinetic Energy required to reach a vehicle speed of 100km/h starting from 0. The speed of the car signifies the energy that the engine was able to produce from burning fuel (simplified version of Kinetic Energy of the car). Interpreting this, the curve shows that most of the energy that is ever used to accelerate the rotors is used at the lower speed band, and as you get progressively fast, the rotors rotate quicker and are thus are not as “difficult” to rotate. CONCLUSION What the data and the graph shows is that most of the energy that is ever used to accelerate the rotors is used at the lower speed band, and as you get progressively fast, the rotors rotate quicker and are thus are not as “difficult” to rotate. I’ve shown all the rotor energies in the table just for the hell of it – so you can see how the energy required by the rotor goes up exponentially with speed. In this table for TIME SPLITS (not the same as the above graph), the various energies for rotors and energies of the car at various speeds, the ratio of required rotor energy compared to energy from the engine, is the same at all speed splits. This percentage is 0.007494%. That isn’t a hell of a lot!!! So finally there is some evidence that even big brakes aren’t such big factors in “power loss” from the engine! Woot! A typical 9.4” rotor would have a ratio % value of around 0.00276%. Calculating a percentage ratio of these two ratios, we land up seeing that from changing from a 9.4” rotor to a slightly heavier 12” rotor, you are increasing your energy “wastage” from the engine by 36.78% compared to the original value. While this may seem sort of high, you have to understand that everything in tuning is a trade-off. I’ve highlighted the negative side-effect of going to bigger brakes, and in my opinion, 36.78% increase is really not much, because you’re looking at heat capacity improvements of up to like 120%. Also, all the calculations have been done assuming the 12” is of one-piece construction, and weighs 2kg more than the 9.4”. 1.9..16vTurbo weighed his 12” AP’s and the floating rotor was actually lighter than the 9.4” stock rotor!! This brings that 36.78% down quite a margin, and it also reduces your unsprung weight which is great news for cornering performance. Also, while I have used the term "big brake kit" in this article quite loosely, in automotive aftermarket brake systems, 12" isn't that big and is certainly the maximum diameter I would suggest for a Mk2. I saw an Audi A4 running around with some 14" Wilwoods, and the energy sapping of that size rotor is really going to be bad. While wheels haven't featured in this, I think I'll do a similar article on energy that wheels require sometime in the future. A lot of people say that the upgrade to bigger brakes means needing bigger wheels and THAT is the big deficit, and I don't agree, because of the mechanics of them, they aren't as influential on inertia as one might think... But that, ladies and gentlemen, is a story for another day... Hope you enjoy, and it isn't too technical :/

Cool video. How fats were you going down the quarter? I ask b/c the wiper kept goin up and up and up. Mabye you need to have a look at the aero thread lol. Nice video reguardless.

Hey JBK240z those are the videos I was talking about, I'm glad you were able to find them! Those segments were REALLY neat and covered his process very well IMO.

ditto, any idea?

There are some videos floating around of a fella outwest who made a jet powered cart. I very sure he used a turbo of so kind. He went thorugh several disigns and has videos of all of them. I would search that if you can.

B double E double R UN...Beer run. Nice Video Phil I hope you enjoy your ricer slant with those MONSTER 4 inch pipes!

Well I hate you now...That was very very annoying!

Go Black it gives it that horrod racecar look!

I think the interior color has been swaped for black, and the judging from the overspray on the driver side rear wheel well recently painted. The car looks good though.

Thanks Lunar I needed that, Calc II just kicked my buttocks!