Bob_H

So John, the important question is have you gotten to drive yours yet?! I look forward to a "report" of how the car drives with all its crazy stuff, quaife box, sunbelt motor, stripped car, etc.. eating apples that taste like oranges, -Bob PS- it would likely be better to put this in another subject. how did those v8 guys sneak in here?

Well, some of you know I am looking at some wild suspension setups. Well, after much measuring, my stock width tire to tire edge is just under 65 inches. The setup I am looking at is about 67-69 depending on tire/wheel setup. And I may be able to get a more positve offest as well but I want to limit that so I don't kill turning radius by hitting the tires on the tie rods. So the two I am considering are as such: Classic Datsun 432 bolt on flares And the metal flares from Victoria British. Hybrid z thread on this I do not want fiberglass flares that are bonded to metal, because of the future cracking potential. Are there any other kinds of flare setups that I can look at? I like the 432 style flares because they are a bolt on type. However, I would like to see some pics of them on a car where the tires/rims are truely at the edge of the flares. As I see it, I need about 2-3 more inches outside clearance front and rear. I appreciate all input and pictures are greatly apprecaited. -Bob

Oh, sorry for the confusion. I know they are not the same flares. I just really like the look of that car. It is the first one I have seen that really fills out the flares. My setup will do that by virtue of the width. -bob

First, Thanks for the input so far. Second, I will not be the one installing any of these. That is one big appeal of the 432 flares as they are "bolt on" to an extent and really can't be screwed up. What I may do for now,(until the car is ready for a re-paint), is get the 432's and install them. I would like to see how much of the fender is cut to accomodate the flare,(well, how much is cut to clear a wider tire is more accurate). And any thoughts on treating the cut metal edge so that it won't start rusting for at least a year, possibly two? And here is a picture to love: And the sharpest looking car I have seen yet. I think I may model my car after this one,(the flare look and wheels): I would love some more info on this car? Anyone? -Bob

Jeff, I'm interested in what you did to blueprint and decrease the tolerances in your pump. As I see it, if the rotors have excessive clearance, how would you decrease that? I like the idea of the smaller gasket to reduce the extra area above the rotors. I too have considered the iron pump because of the smaller expansion rate. However, I always forget when it comes time to replace my oil pump.

DAW, That is the first time I have seen it broken down into small medium and large. I think that is a very apt description and a great way to seperate out the heads. Thanks for the clarification on the Maxima heads. I may be getting older, but I didn't think my memory was getting that bad. And I need to edit that last post, it was a 280zx turbo that I saw the square port N47. I have mistakenly posted that some early turbo motors had the N42. It wasn't until this discussion that I remembered it was a square port N47 that I found on a turbo that appeared to have never been off the head. Geez, I am getting old. And we are all in agreement,(DAW, Norm, Z speed Auto, Dan, myself, Lockjaw, TimZ etc..), that unless you specify what your APPLICATION is, then it is a moot point to discuss. And we also all agree that any comparison between heads is only valid in a stock vs. stock configuration. As soon as you change ANYTHING in the head, shave it, bigger valves, port/polish, new camshaft, etc.. ANY comparision is just not valid anymore. And Geez Norm! That is a TINY combustion chamber! Mine is a full 10cc's bigger. -Bob

Crap, see what happens when you go off and race? Ok, DAW, you said Round ports for the Maxima head. Z sport auto, you said square? Do we have a concensus? And I want to point out the variance in your posts: First: So we have square ports. Then: Ok, no liners, but are you now saying it is round? Then DAW said in discussing the difference btw an E-31 with big valves and a Maxima N-47: So now we have round ports. DAW, liners or not? I am ignoring the one odd square port N-47 you mentioned. I too have seen a 280z(edit 280zx turbo, may bad) N-47 with square exhaust ports, but only one. And to clarify on the P-90 power and being smooth. You said: To which I responded: Now, the last quote, your last post: First, I never disputed the less power issue. But I contended it is because of COMPRESSION. Peak cylinder pressure is a function of compression, so if that is what you mean, we are talking about the same thing, you are talking about the effect, I am talking about the cause. However, that has nothing to do with the power line being smoother by my definition,(again, a subjective term, please define what you mean by smoother). Bottom line, the PCP is lower because of the lower compression. I am ignoring the effects of timing, rod ratio, etc.. On two identical motors, lets say a stock flat top 2.8, one with the P-90, one with the N42/47, the P-90 has less power beacuse of the significantly lower compression. An effect of that lower compression is the lower PCP value. If you are equating lower power to a smoother line, ok, but that is the first time I have heard it refered to in that way. So to sumarize: Looking for clarification from DAW and Zspeedauto as to square vs round. My contention was round,(with liners, but I can't remember 100% on that). Next, looking for a definition of what a "smoother" power line is. For I take it to mean less peaks and valleys, i.e. similar to what you see on a hp curve from a motor with detonation vs. one without. And I am glad to see Ken is about to get back on the road. I talked to him last week about his supercharger plans. I think you guys are nuts and he can't keep well enough alone. But he has turned me on to check out Perfect power and their PRS-8. -Bob

Ok, lots of mud slinging here.... Before I start, I do need to menetion this. Z speed auto, while I could care less about your spelling and grammar, I find your posts very hard to understand. Your sentances often leave me questioning what you are trying to say. So if I am missing something, that is why, and please correct,(everyone here would enjoy the laugh at my expense). Zspeedauto said: That worked? They ALL work. Do you mean a OEM outside the motor cast iron oil pump? I'm quite sure they exist. The cast iron replacement for our aluminum oil pumps WORKS fine. I don't understand what you are getting at? Next: Are you refering to a dry sump pump? I will admit I am not intimately familiar with the exact rule requirements of top fuel beyond the 500 cubic inch maximum. They may require wet sump and internal oil pumps, I don't know. But most of the high end drag cars and nearly all high end race cars I have seen run dry sump systems. And they are aluminum because that is a rather large piece of equipment, significantly larger than our "regular" oil pumps, so I don't think a comparison is valid, again, back to the head discussion, too many variables. I think weight is a big factor there as well as heat dissapation. And: The oil psi they top fuel dragsters run at? They run the minumum necessary plus a small margin for error. Pumping the oil pressure any higher only robs horsepower. I am not aware that they run much more than your avereage built V8 at 60-100 psi. But again, your second sentence left me wondering. calling who by name? I saw no reference to someone else. Did I miss something?And: Because brass doesn't conduct heat as well. But we already covered that copper does a superior job to either brass or aluminum. But we are not talking about brass oil pumps, but iron. I think I know why you are using that example, but it is a poor one for your case. First, you are comparing two different forms of pressure. Boiling temperature of oil is really not something we are ever concerned with in our motors and at no time is there really any significant pressure over the oil. Second, adding pressure above a liquid,(water in your example), does nothing to the waters temperature. I will admit it has been a few years since my Thermodynamics class, but not that long. Incresing the pressure of a liquid itself does not increase its temperature of any significance. We are not dealing with a GAS which follows the ideal gas law of an increase in pressure increases the temperature. I'm not going to try and compute out the exact differences, for as I said, they are minor at best. So, the increase in temp. the oil sees from going through the pump is for all purposes, non-existent. Think about it, if it did increase in temp. everytime it went through the pump, it would steadily continue to increase on each pass through the pump until it overheated. (on edit, just to be clear, I realize there is a small amount of heat transfer from friction and the pump body, but I am ignoring that and addressing just the increase in the fluid pressure) Again, I obviously missed this reference. Could you please point it out to me. Are you talking about Ken Jones? And this is from James: The turbo oil pump has 5mm larger internal rotors, hence the greater flow than your standard oil pump. I can only assume you mean you will not get an actual turbo pump when you ask for one at your local parts counter. I have gotten the correct one,(a turbo pump) three times out of three. A whole bunch of misinformation, or worse, partial information floating around. I'm gonna stand by my insistence on more concrete proof. Z speed auto, you are not the first person whose post I broke down. Craig,(Lockjaw), is a recent victim. It is nothing on you, but rather the information you present. I think in your case, the presentation is severely hurting your delivery because many of us can't understand what you are trying to say. So if I misinterpreted any of your comments, please correct me and give others here a chance to laugh at my follies. Otherwise, address my issues. -Bob Hanvey

Specifically I am interested in their PRS-8 system. Ken Jones is using it to tune his now 3.1 stroker with Fuel injection, soon to be supercharged. The price for the PRS-8 should be about $850 and offers options that much more expensive packages offer. I couldn't find reference to wiring harness, etc.. but I am sure they are approx 3-400 like most other companies. The website is: Perfect Power -Bob

Off to Beaver Run for the weekend so this is quick. It has been over three years since I last saw a Maxima head, and time blurs the memory, so I will defer to you and DAW on exactly what is on it as I am sure the two of you have some more recent experience than I,(and I never disputed the fuel pump, my P-90A has the block off plate as well). I had no problem with your spelling,(mine sucks), but I said poorly worded because it wasn't clear. Grammar wasn't really an issue. I myself had mAdz GraMmer sKiLz! So I'll be the last to call someone on that. -off to the races, Bob

Ok, I lied, I am weighing in again, but only b/c someone new posted. Z speed auto. There appears to be several inaccuracies or poorly worded info. Time to correct: Uhhh. Square exhaust ports with the Maxima head? The N-47 by definition is a exhaust liner head. I.E. round. I assume by "Max head" you mean the Maxima N-47 with its associated small combustion chamber. Am I missing something here? Actually, you only need to change one of the valves. Off hand I forget if it is the intake or exhaust which is the "smaller" size. The other is the same as the regular N-47/42. And as a side note, when you have the choice of only enlarging one valve? Which one would you enlarge? There's a question for you John... Well, that ignores one rather important part. The PRIMARY reason it would produce more power is the signifiantly higher Compression Ratio vs. the N-42. There are many advantages of the "Maxima head" and many shortcomings. I call BS. First, are we talking no mods? Of course it will have less power. Again, say it with me folks: compression. However power line smoother? I don't buy it. Give me some cold hard facts as to why it would have a "smoother",(which is a totally subjective term), power line/curve? No anctedotal evidence of My car ran better than X car. Your profile says you own a shop, but we need a higher standard of proof here. And why not the N-42 as Dan has with 230+ hp at the rear wheels? I only have 180 with my 3.1L and P-90A. I think a better statement would be: "To really get the advantage of the P-90, you need a turbo motor". And as for your question about the same cast? My take on it is as thus: (just my opinion, based on absolutely nothing), They just altered the mold as things progressed. If you look at the evolution, one or two things changed each time. A bigger valve, a larger combustion chamber, the other valve got bigger, a slightly reshaped combustion chamber, an exhaust liner with redesigned intake runner, same runners with new chamber, and old exhaust with everything else the same. The legend for my little history lesson is as such: E-31, E-88, E-88, N-42, N-47, P-79, P-90. -Bob

Dan, I know this should probably go on the suspension forum,(is now) but I know you are "surfing" here and I am looking for an answer tonight. (this was originally going into the L6 forum). A while back you had an issue where your car was pulling either left or right under braking. What was the cause and the fix? I forgot. As an aside, getting ready to take my car up to the new track Beaver Run, this will be the first time on track with the Z. Squirely is an understatement. It has all kinds of straight line acceleration. But my steering effort is really high, and boy does it hunt over bumps,(not bump steer, but bump tracking). I am running 225/50/15's A032R's on 15x7's. ON second thought, I am going to post this in suspension. Of course you will only see it there... -Bob (the not yet motorless car)

Oh god, I thought we circle jerked this long ago. I'm gonna weigh in once on this, and that's it. First, I would bet MY CAR, that if we could get one car, and two identically preped heads,(same cam, event timing, etc..), one being a P-90 and the other being an N-42, that we would see less than a 5 hp difference, or within the region of error. Where I think the difference/advantage if you want, of the P-series is it "theoretically" protects you from detonation a little longer. Beyond that? We are all guessing. So more questions, why the P-90 on the turbo and not a N-42 with bigger chambers? And DAW aluded to using a N-47 with the turbo manifold,(I assume to run a turbo?). First, with any round liner head,(steel inserts, or whatever material they are), the exhaust gasses of a turbo motor and the associated higher temperature would be too much for them. Their original "goal" as stated in some literature, was to heat up and burn off some more combustion stuff hopefully creating a cleaner exhaust. Well, you are sticking something in the way of the exhaust with a turbo, and it tends to run a bit hotter,(more gas and air going in for a given cycle). That could prove to be a problem with liners designed to heat up. It has been rumored,(and blocks I have seen supported this), that the very first turbo's had N-42's. They needed a design w/o the liners, and the only existing design was the N-42. The P-90 is a good combination of the slighly sideways D shaped intake ports from the P series, with the square exhaust ports from the N series and the chamber of the P series. Is it the best? I think Nissan took what they needed to make a turbo motor, i.e. put a square exhaust port design in the P-79 head. Name it something new and get on with it. I don't think that means it is the best in the line, but rather the best solution for what Nissan needed at the time. So please folks, lets not get into the pissing match. Oh, and I know a race motor that produced 315-320 hp at the flywheel with an E-88! So obviously by that logic the E-88 is best. And Dan, while I admire your argument and for the most part agree, it doesn't hold much weight for what you want to prove: that the N-42 in unmodified form is better than the P-90 or P-79. Because all three of your examples have EXTENSIVE head work. Esp. yours and John's. So by that token, it is only fair to compare an equally prepared P series. Is shaving it equal to porting the heck out of it? Or in John's case, changing the combustion chamber? We all recognize that to compare anything but stock vs stock is unrealistic and proves nothing. So, with that in mind, here is my opinion: For 100% stock vs stock, the N-42 is VASTLY more superior,(great gramer skilz eh?). No mods are required to get fairly high compression ratios, which support more power. And that is really the only difference worth comparing stock vs stock. The only thing I can find in favor of the P-series having an advantage, for "equal" mods if you will is my dyno plots vs other similarly equiped strokers. The get the same hp at the wheels, they were most often running 45 mm carbs and higher compression by about .5 CR. I fully realize there are a million variables, but few motors with my small cam produce 180 to the wheels with less than 10:1 CR. And I think there is another 5 hp to be found if I can ever fabricate a proper heat shield, (DO THIS DAN! I put just a sheet of metal under the carbs when sync'ing them yesterday, wow, what a difference, cool to the touch for the carbs!). But there I go violating my rule about comparing unequal cars. So Sean, you enjoying this?

David, See my thread in the L6 forum, including my links. I think the L6 5 speed is between 75 and 100 lbs,(I can pick it up with a reasonable effort). I would love to find out what a fully dressed L6 and tranny weights. I don't think I'll have the chance to find out with mine b/c it will be picked up, not shipped. -Bob.

You know better Craig! I will NOT back you up on this one ! Sean, I refer you, as everyone, to the search function. It works rather well, and can save you a lot of questions. But since you are new, I took the liberty of doing it for you,(lets see how often I am this nice). Here is a thread with 2+ pages about the two heads. You should find it entertaining. We did! Weber head thread And Lockjaw and I are not mortal enemies. We just have a disagreement on the best head for the money. Enjoy, Bob

A HA! First, after you "correct" it, it takes at least another post before it takes effect. And two, it is automatically a linked text w/o URL commands. That's kinda screwy, cause what if you want to put a quote, not a link? Oh well, its fixed. -Bob

I freakin give up. Currently it is supposed to only be the address. No URL code, no quote. I have no idea. -Bob internet retard

Agh! Bastards. I copied it WITHOUT A SPACE, and it puts a space it! Here it is again, with NO SPACE after URL= Http://www.geocities.com/row4navy/ I'm gonna try taking out the capital H in Http and see what that does.

Ok, back to my url problem. Every time I go into my profile to change the stuff, I get the same thing, regardless of previous changes: Http://www.geocities.com/row4navy/ That is a direct copy from my profile page. I can delete it all, and it still appears. I don't know. And I don't know what Morgan included or how he weighted it. I would imaging he did not include the clutch and flywheel. -Bob

Ok, in order, Norm, I did search, although a weak one and came up with this: http://www.hybridz.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000193 However, after your ribbing, I searched again, and with some more diligent search terms, I came up with: http://www.hybridz.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000151#000000 Which still seems kinda low to me since the SR20det is supposed to be almost exactly the same,(Morgan says ~475lbs for L28et). Mike, I have updated my profile again,(I hit update profile each time, it said processing, then brought be back) but it still appears with the [url= stuff. I have not changed it since I signed up for this account, and it worked before,(as a link), and now does not. And I am the only one I see with the [url= code, i.e. others have proper links. But back to my topic. I am in agreement with you Norm on the bare weights. Add about 100-150 for fluids, manifolds, exhaust, etc and that should be the just under 500 Morgan quoted. So that would indicate switching to a SR20det,(for those considering), it is NOT a weight advantage, but rather a more central mass advantage. Interesting. The RB's extra weight is mostly in the turbo's, intake, intercooler, etc.. The block itself is likely about 25 lbs more than the L28. -Bob

And what the heck is going on with my signature? I tired to take out the [url= stuff, but it still shows up, and no link? blah. I must have something checked I shouldn't, like don't let that stuff work.. -Bob

Ok, I'm game..., Why do you have a forged set of RB26dett pistons? I don't really want to monkey with the RB motor I am buying but rather run it for a long time on stock parts. Droping several thousand dollars for a motor and transmission is hard enough to swallow. I'll give you $15 for each piston. You didn't mention what CR it gives me? -Bob

So you are saying 550 total? And what are you basing the guess on? As a reference, the SR20det and tranny is just under 500, and the RB26dett and tranny appears to be about 750. Trying to get an idea of how much weight I will gain with the swap. -Bob

Just doing some research for shipping and personal knowledge. What is the approx. weight of a fully dressed L28 and 5 speed transmission? Thanks, Bob

Now that's not very nice Craig. Let me be clear. I would love to hear how Nissmo280zEd did it if it is true, as would all of us. But going along with John's comments, I think to make that kinda power work, they were very inventive, i.e. using another model Bosch setup, or a hybrid setup of some form. Again, this assumes it is a vaild claim. I am NOT saying it can't be done, but rather it is very hard to acheive. I personally would love to hear how it can be done. -All ears, Bob