Careless

matty, the R32 crank collar mod is not a measurement of "not enough" or "too much", it's a matter of rectifying a serious design/machining flaw in the way nissan made the driving mechanism for the pump, which creates seriously catastrophic vibration. even if you choose not to do the N1 pump, at least do the crank collar.

most RB aftermarket pulleys have bolt holes on the front for power steering pulleys.

let's keep it nissan and use a Nissan Micra. heck, if you fail at electrical projects, you can get the 1.2 litre and get 50mpg.

beautifully done! excellent welds!

Yes, they are different diameter. Below is the picture of the larger water pump pulley.... Racinjitter was impressed by the size of my pulley, indicating mine is larger than average. (has anyone noticed how much the water pump itself looks like a set of gonads?) As far as I know, there is no difference in any crank dampener pulley inside diameter or crank snout outside diameter. RB25, 26, and 30 crank pulleys are said to have been used on either of the engines, and usually people with RB30's put the RB26 dampeners on. People with RB25's do too, as they RB26 is supposedly a touch lighter. And there are two different part numbers for the water pump pulley, yes. the first part of the number is the category, the second part of the number is the application. if you know the part number (i don't right now) of the water pump pulley, the application for RB25 should be XXXXX-42L00, and RB26 XXXXX-58U00 or something like that. XXXXX being the "water pump" category number. I have them at my other house, I'll get them for you if you need them. Let me know.

lol i didn't even see mine get modified. I just peeped this whole thread to look for my change, and my stomach is hurting from laughter. LOL

LOL... summunabich. as long as you fellas are having fun

I'll just call my car "Character" then. can't dispute that one. hehehe

thx2u!

They will bolt up. It's 4 holes and 4 studs threaded into the water pump and then fastened with the pulley between the hub and the nut. All are the same bolt pattern. They might not have the same clearance, yet... I think they would. Dimensions are pretty much identical as far as I've seen for the blocks. I myself got a larger water pump pulley from Nissan I can get the part number this weekend. price was roughly 25 dollars as far as I remember.

ummmm. I can't remember whether or not I put the "i.e. - NOT careful" under my name, because it sounds like something I'd put... but I don't remember doing it. who dunnit? whya doon'it!?

just noticed you removed this post from the graveyard, alex. LOL meh, adding my opinion anyway.

Personally, I'd go with the biggest engine, that being the RB30. more displacement = more capacity for more power. RB's don't like to be revved out to high unless it's all built anyway, so building it right from the start may negate any concerns about the RB30 being unable to rev. RB's are all under-square in terms of stroke length. Closest to square being the RB30. I think the combination of stroke and bore size of the RB30 is the best of both worlds in that it would make great low-rev power and rev to a reasonable level. 8500 has been proven, but for a circle track I'm not sure if the engine can endure that at many laps. The idea of being able to rev to high RPM isn't really a good measure of an propensity to make power, because you're putting more stress on the components. I'd look at which engine has the capability to make similar power at lower revs, and use that as a base to tune the head to make power at high revs. And in this particular RB case, the RB30 makes 15% more torque and power, 15% earlier in the rev range, as per RB30DET.com In any case, I tend to look at things from neither the stroke/bore size or square size. Take a look at a circle and an oval. if the crank rotates in a circle (you better hope it does!) It seems to me that in order to achieve a reasonable piston side-load and rod-load that will have the best combination of revvability and reliability, you'd want to come as close to a square as possible. that would (in my mind, anyway), make stress all around the rotating assembly spread itself more evenly, being that a square motor is essentially a circle one, and a over/under square is essentially an oval one. Just something I believe in. if anyone can give me some technical info to think inside/further outside the box, i'd like to hear it cause I'm definitely not an expert at all.

I'm just curious as to why you didn't mention the method as to how rebello would do such a modification. what I think they would do is offset grind the crank like mentioned, and possibly run a thicker headgasket, with a taller piston and a compression ring that seats itself lower at TDC to allow the piston to peek over the gasket with more margin/tolerances for expansion/error with the ring unseating itself into the thin gasket area, and making a bad seal. and of course, longer rods. Are you sure Dave wasn't surprised that you CONFRONTED him, and the means for such a call, because I'm not a machinist I can think of a lot of ways to gain displacement on an engine, it's just that some people don't see the need to spend megabux to get an extra .04 liters or so. how would you do it, brian? everyone knows you're good with your stuff. I'm curious, because neither your's nor jmortensen's post had ANY tech at all that was not previously mentioned by the thread starter. accusing john of not posting tech is a little hard to swallow when it's clear that you didn't either. can we just get back to HOW and now WHO? cause I'm pretty sure none of the people reading (myself included) give a hoot about who's done what and how it was done unless tech actually presents itself. Lets not disappoint the poster because of a squabble like this. we all want real answers.

would rotating the switch itself so it stays on when closed be an alternative in your application?

I'd also like to push my engine back further, but my velocity stacks will pose a problem =( You will need wipers for rainy track days though, so I hope you figure that one out.

I can't agree more with what you've stated. In fact the reason why I got this book was to learn to do these steps to some degree so that I can guage my accuracy with the machinist's specs, just to make sure I didn't miss anything and neither did her or she. It's something I'd like to do in the future when I save up the money to invest into a machine shop of some sort, so I'd like to start with a good solid textual base, and so far this book looks pretty good, and is a touch more technical than the Engine Blueprinting book I have, which is also a great read.

so what are your plans with the wipers? I think the engine mounting that far back is a nice modification, but I'm curious about the necessities that they negate.

hey stonehac you got's a n/a basemap in screenshot form you can fire my way? gonna see if I can correlate with wolf's software to input values.

ummmm I had a girl name my 280z "Isabella" cause in italian "Bella" means "Beautiful", and since we're both italian; Is'a Bella! Not sure if I like the name though, cause she's not 'bella' at all right now. My Z is like the girl that you treat like dirt, and she sticks to you like mud. except this one actually has control of my money to a certain extent. I think I'll name my 87 Turbo "Isabella" cause it's a beautiful car for the price I paid, and it's in great condition. I think I'll name my 280z "John", named after the man who left the car with his wife after passing away, who later gave it to me for free "as long as I take the mags and tires with it". Or I could name it "Karen" after her... we're like fam now hmmmmz

not to mention the fans needed to suck the cold air off the ceramic plate, as well as trying to fit them under the carpet. if you got an idea, go for it, but i dont see it being efficient

Indeed you are correct, not a single overhead cam engine in there, but I'm reading it for the fact that I've never fully completely blueprinted an engine before, and I don't know anyone that really has even though they say they did (talk the talk...). So I think it will be a good read =)

It's been posted a million times, specifically by me. FS5W17A, B, and C models (A and B didn't come with 3rd and 5th gear synchros, I think) came on: L28's with 5speed that weren't T5's CA18DET RB20DET RB25DE SR20DE KA24E,DE. The bell housing will need to be from an RB20 or 25, or you could use a KA bell housing, and make a small adapter of sorts (i've been told). Really the only advantage is the smaller gears = less reciprocating mass/parasitic loss, and lighter weight as well as shorter gearing.

hi guys, I just recently received shipment of my new Reher-Morrison Racing Engines workshop text book. http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexMain.htm I don't work for the company, but damn this book has A LOT of good info. From what I can tell it is the best hands on mechanical/engine building book that I've had the pleasure of glancing over on the ride home from picking it up. I'll be reading and highlighting and answering the text book style chapter questions (yes, it's used in their racing school classes that you can take for a little under 1500 bucks) over the course of my public-transit travels to work. I think for about 100 bucks, it's not a bad deal. It's got TONS of info. anyone looking to build some bad ass v8's will want to start somewhere... I think this is a good place, even though I'm using these tips to build my RB. We'll see how far I get with both the book and the engine together.

peltiers are cool if you wanna make a heatsink for a computer. it's a case that is smaller than the car by about 30 times. so try fitting your datsun with 30 peltiers, and we might be gettin somewhere. But then you need 15 alternators.