Bob_H
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Bob_H
-
-
Check on speedhunters.com if that isn't where you already found it - it was named street(?) car of the year.
-
Hasn't been updated in a while - and my work has stalled out with some other projects. But here is the thread on hybrid:
http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/50059-documentary-of-the-super-datsun-resurrection/
Pic:
-
I owned a 2000 M Coupe for a long time and tracked it quite a bit. I've tracked all the cars you listed - but track ability,(or autocross), should not be your primary deciding factor if your driving 500 miles a week and not going to autocross/track more than a few times a year.
ALL will be good track cars.
The key is the other stuff - how is it day to day. The M Coupe will pull about 24mpg for regular highway driving. Best I ever got was about 26mpg. There are issues with any 10 year old car - pay for a well maintainted and documented example no matter what you choose. If you have no maint. records - plan on paying the bottom dollar to give you some room to fix/repair items.
My parents bought my '00 M coupe and are going to sell it soon - my brother in law is a BMW master mech and went over the car head-toe replacing/fixing everything. I don't know what they want, but I'd expect close to $20k if not more - likely out of your price range but it gives you an idea of price range. It does have the sunroof - so may not be an option for you. I will tell you the Non sunroof M Coupe is a rare bird indeed - very rare... You of course are only talking about the S52 M Coupes since the S54's,(01-02), are mid 20'ks minimum.
The snap oversteer is not really snap oversteer like an older porsche. The car was a wonderful "drivers" car - very responsive and communicative. Semi trailing arm does have its drawbacks if you don't drive it certain ways - but chopping a throttle mid corner will not snap the rear around - but it does bring the rear around faster than some other cars,(it also has a short wheelbase). I loved "dancing" it at the limit and still think it was one of the most rewarding cars to drive at speed.
The S2000's are fun - lacking torque, but fast and predictable. Prices have really fallen on these and they are your cheapest option.
The C5 vette is absolutely your best speed/bang for your dollar. They do have shortcomings as described above - heat soak, cheap interiors/etc... However, speed wise, they are on top of your list by a good margin. Although the S52 M Coupe can keep up with a regular C5 except on longer straights - where it walks away.
In the end, drive them all, find the one you can live with 5 days a week - not just the one day a month at the autocross.
-Bobby
-
Just saw this - but I have a question.
You said in the first post this was during the "first run". Did your tooner,(or tuner), spend quite a bit of time making sure all the maps/injectors/etc.. were correct and did some light throttle runs to see if it was all correct? I ask b/c I know some tooners put the car on the dyno and the very first thing they do is a full throttle run.
That is a sign you need to walk away from that tooner. They are not a tuner.
If that is the case - it very likely was detonation and that is unfortunate. If your tuner spent some time getting the maps/etc.. all correct first and was doing a light throttle/first check on the power enrichment,(>70-80% throttle usually), then it could be a mechanical failure or a very unfortunate early detonation failure.
Just something to put out there for others who may look at various tuners/tooners. Its a way to figure out if they are at least taking the correct approach - but doesn't guarantee they are doing it right.
-
I figured getting it to do more that 1/2 lap before overheating was more important that a video
As soon as I have one, I'll post.
Cooling is overrated! J/K - glad to hear your making progress again. I just finished massive troubleshooting on a car I just sold - and am getting ready to do it on one of my Z's,(the Super Datsun), then on to the track car - same issues...
-
You are going to be banned if you don't post a video clip! You've had since July with lots of requests!
-
That ^^^^^ above is an excellent discussion of what has been bandied about in this thread.
-
Sent the PM - but here it is again, I checked and it was a 4.375 R200 long nose with a LSD,(might be nismo, nothing to prove it though), and a 3.7 open.
-
I'll check when I get home - I have I think a 4.44 R200 long nose and I think a 3.7 or a 4.11 - not sure? One has a LSD - I think the 4.44. Not exactly what your looking for - but if you are interested, let me know and I'll check the actual ratio to be sure.
-Bob
-
I'm going to edit this - I posted this from my iphone and its hard to change things after you posted. I don't believe in hiding what you post by editing - so the removed parts are in quote form at the bottom - the parts I believe don't belong.
How do you explain 255 rwhp at 6500 rpm in my NA L6?
You continue to miss the point- and that simple point is you don't need the rpm you insist you need. Again- it's your money and your the one that can blame your schooling when you insist that your goals,(not ours), can't be made w/o greater than 7000 rpm- also known as the point where your investment goes up a significant amount.
Your model doesn't work for me- as it would limit what I make and claims I just can't make the power I do at the rpm I do.
You have done a fantastic job of staying on the defensive and telling us your estimates don't explain our results.
We tried to share- but our words fall on deaf ears, not our conjecture, but real, tangible results on how you can make your goals.
I'll tell you what- go build what you think needs to be done and come back and show us.
You are going to lengths to stick to your estimates/model.
Here is the real question- Did you post this to learn how it can be done, or did you post this to have us help prove your theory?
Seems to me I can't find anywhere in your posts where you are trying to understand- but rather are clinging to this model you came up with reading magazines, blogs and posts. It's not clear to me.
Bob
Items that had no place in the above post: So genius- .... I could care less about your model- .....but you refuse to listen to our results.....is where we were wrong.......Your not taking anything anyone has said seriously- but rather ....Did I miss something here? ....What are you really trying to learn here- or what do you hope we learn from you? -
The mounts should be the same - the outputs for the turbo/etc. won't be - but it will physically bolt in and with some work you can make it work while you rebuild the rb26. it may be far cheaper/easier in the long run to sell the rb25 and just plain rebuild the 26. no driver during that time, but less money in the long run.
-
Not to belabor this, but you took a general statement for a production engine (that is: an engine built by a manufacturer for every day use, with a CR around 9-10:1) and tried to apply it to a what is essentially a racing engine. The rest of my text says CR is the major factor affecting torque/liter. 13.6 should give about 12-15% higher torque/L - and all the little tweaks done to a high-performance engine adds a bit more. Call it 70 ft-lb/l, and your 3L should make about 210 ft-lb torque, and 7200 RPM works out to 288 hp (thats at the crank). I don't understand how you got 275 ft-lb at any RPM, but I'd like to learn. What I'm thinking is that a high-overlap cam has a sweet-spot in the RPM range where it combines with the manifold length to give a Veff > 1 and so generates a bump in the torque curve.
.....
Finally, if my estimates are low, the worst thing that happens is I build a motor that makes more power than I had hoped for. That ain't so bad...
Don
Don,
We are all trying to help you spend less money than you seem to want to for your desired goal. You can certainly build a 7500 rpm motor - it requires a builder familiar with the L6 and good at what they do. That is a very long crank and as John and Tony in other posts have alluded to - it has some interesting harmonics in the 7-8k range.
Forgive me for being blunt - ok, don't forgive me. Your being obtuse and missing the point here. You aren't an engine builder, you haven't built one of these before, and you don't do this for a living. Your an armchair engineer on this issue. You have many of us who HAVE built these motors well in excess of your modeling. Many of us are engineers as well - some for their full time job. Many of us can also tune the EFI motors. We aren't speaking out of theory and conjecture - but actual experience.
If you are hard on up 7500 rpm because your calculations say for 200 hp you need that for a 2.8L motor - by all means spend your hard earned money. Bottom line - you don't need to spend that kind of cash to achieve those goals. Your model is not accurate - and we could spend plenty of time showing you example after example that don't follow it to every one you find that does. The current crop of LS motors are a prime example. STOCK LS3 from a corvette - 6.2L motor, 424 lb-ft of torque per the factory rating. VERY easy to increase that by a significant margin - but the STOCK setup means your model predicts 372 lb-ft vice the actual 424.
Its a factory motor with 68+ lb-ft per liter, or 13% over your theory. There are many daily driver LS motors that are pushing near 600 lb-ft of torque at the motor - or nearly 100lb-ft/l and 60% more than your model. Bottom line, those may be current technology motors, but they don't anywhere near comply with your model.
By that same token - your using data from builds that you don't know the extent of the prep, knowledge level of the builder on the L6 motor and heads/etc.. Its a crap shot. A competent builder of L6 motors,(Rebello, Sunbelt when they were doing it, and a few others I know), with good money spent on a head - yield results well exceeding your model. See the trend and why we are giving you such a hard time? I can take a great $$$$$ head and put it on a shortblock that was not well prep'd,(unbalanced/etc..), and the output will go down a significant amount. I can have timing off by a little bit and the entire power curve is skewed and lower. I can have the fueling completely off and it will be a piece of crap.
There are so many variables in output its impressive. "Streetable" or 11:1 CR and lower plus driveable,(not 1200+ rpm idle) as you define it means your approximation doesn't work for many motors, not just a few examples. All my NA cars - my LS motored RX-7, My 240Z, and several others I've owned and built all exceed 60 lb-ft of torque per liter by more than a few % - usually by nearly 40-60%.
You want a fun to drive car, 200+ rwhp, and near torque out of a 2.8L - you flat out don't need 7500 rpm unless you feel a desire to spend more money. You don't need big money - its fairly easy to do. I guess you've already figured out in your mind that its harder to do, or want to justify why you need to spend more than you actually do - we are spinning our wheels here so please admit such and we can move on.
As long as you continue to insist on your model and why you need 7500 rpm, we will continue to show the error of that thinking for your goals.
My suggestion - settle on 7k, find combo's that have worked for 200+ rwhp at that range, and enjoy the heck out of a car that will turn low 13 sec or faster 1/4 mi times, sound incredible and be a blast to drive. SU's or Triples are a cost consideration. I personally like the FI SU throttle body option. Tuning FI is intimidating at first, but with some good solid classes like Greg Banish's engine tuning class - things don't seem so bad. 170 rwhp will yield high 13's for a poor driver in a 240z - faster if your good. 200 or more rwhp is even more fun in a 2500lb car. There aren't many cars that can keep up with a low 13 second or faster car. They are out there esp. the newer cars - but that's pretty good company for a 30+ year old car and 40+ year old motor design technology.
This is a one circle discussion - both going in the same direction with different objectives. One defensive - one offensive. We are on your team and trying to save you money, time and frustration that most of us have gone through at one time,(or multiple times), ourselves. There is some tremendous experience and voices speaking in this thread - might be worth considering why you have some very experienced posters saying your assumptions might not be accurate or correct.
Have you driven a triple carb 2.8L that was tuned well - i.e. 180 or more rwhp? Might change your mind on what you HAVE to build as far as RWHP.
-Bob
-
Ok good Will Hunting... (a little movie reference for those that don't get it)
I know you are the OP but I'm not a name caller - and you've done a great job telling us who have motors that put out big HP and more than what you want - why its not theoretically possible.
There is an excellent quote my Dad often used on me and others when I was growing up:
"A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".
You've convinced yourself that your right. You have the theoretical/reading/interpreting to back up what you have come to believe. You came and asked us - we told you what works, what we have done that works, but your coming back with your theoretical/reading/etc..on why we can't be right.
Your convinced and its not our job to convince you why your wrong, but yours to figure out why we are getting these results that don't match with your theoretical hypothesis.
Again, we have told you what HAS worked - not why it theoretically won't/can't work. Your coming back with why it shouldn't work and your idea/theory should. Its only your money in the long run - not ours...
-Bob
I've been reading car magazines for 30 years and looking at dyno sheets posted on the web a few more - 60 ft-lb/liter (1 ft-lb per inch) is a pretty good guess for a production auto engineOf note on an edit:
60 ft-lb/liter (1 ft-lb per inch) is a pretty good guess for a production auto engine. Well tuned engines - where fuel delivery and ignition is just right - seem to make a tiny bit (1-2%) more.So with my LS2 in my 94 RX-7 which is a 6.0L motor - should only make 360 ft-lb of torque, or maybe 375ft-lb if the fuel delivery and ignition are just right. However, it put 475 lb-ft of torque to the WHEELS. pump gas, 11:1 CR.
That means the figures you have arrived at based on reading/internet lurking just aren't correct. My motor in the RX-7 put 50% more lb-ft of torque at the flywheel vs your example,(540lb-ft at the flywheel).
We can find all kinds of examples to vary much more than 1-2% beyond your model. This indicates its not an accurate model/theory.
-
The big take-away that seems to be missed by the OP - we aren't saying you would cruise around at 7500 rpm, or that you can't do it - but rather you don't NEED to do 7500rpm for the goals. You can do it, at a $$$ expense, ok, maybe $$$$ expense..
But what is coming out clearly from your posts is a partial focus on 7500 rpm, or the rpm period, not the power. We live in a world where a Honda can turn 8-9000 rpm and people seem to think if you don't pull big RPM numbers, you aren't really producing big power w/o race gas, 13:1 CR, monster cams, etc... Take a look at aircraft engines for proof of that - but that is not the main point. Decide if you want a set HP, or if you just want a set RPM. While they are related - they are not tied. 200 whp is fairly straight forward to achieve - and with driveability. It won't be cheap, but not much is when your talking bigger power from a 30-40 year old powerplant design.
Again, 200 whp is not hard to do - 7500 is not out of the realm of posiblity, but will drive up your cost for a much smaller gain in power compared to other approaches.
Strokers don't "fall on their face" at 6500 rpm. The Camshaft falls on its face or the tuning falls on its face or the combined setup falls on its face - its not running out of steam because it has a diesel crank and longer rods.
I just bought Dan Baldwin's car that put 255+ to the rear wheels - uh oh, 3.1L stroker, 7000 rpm. The weak point in his,(now my), motor? The cast KA24E pistons. Thats the reason for the approx 7k self imposed redline and honestly it doesn't need any more than that.
I will state - the combo for 255 rwhp was worked on for a long time, uses a no longer available sunbelt prep'd head/camshaft and is a great combo of parts to end up with that power. You can get similar today from Rebello for a price..
Streetable and he drove it to EVERY event he tracked - most of them several hours. Not as streetable as a 175 rwhp car, but I tracked it and it was very easy to drive. Its the combo of parts and the tuning, not the rpm per say.
Bottom line - figure out if its the RPM or the power you want. 7k and 200 rwhp are achievable w/o burning your bank down and knowing super secret know-how or owning super rare parts.
-Bobby
Basically a mild stroker build without the long crank (to give me my 7500 RPM redline without radical porting).know I could get the whp easily with a 3.1 build, but they all seem to max out around 6500 RPM or less -
Saw your msg in my old thread. The rb stamped pan was actually a front sump pan and I was mistaken,(corrected a few posts later). I'll sell the custom pan shown above along with a pickup that you'll have to attach to a tube of some kind for $150. Call it $160 shipped assuming your in the 48 states. I think that flange should work on any RB as it was the same bolt pattern as the RB25 front sump pan shown in my pics.
If your interested, just let me know and I'll give you my paypal info. I can have my welder friend clean up where it rubbed.
I see no point in continuing to move this pan all over the US. I'm back in south Texas again....bout was actually a front sump pan and I was mistaken,(corrected a few posts later). I'll sell the custom pan along with a pickup that you'll have to attach to a tube of some kind for $150. Call it $160 shipped assuming your in the 48 states.
If your interested, just let me know and I'll give you my paypal info. I can have my welder friend clean up where it rubbed.
I see no point in continuing to move this pan all over the US. I'm back in south Texas again....
Bob
-
Very nice and similar to my ideas on what I will integrate into my 240.
-
Gosh guys - didn't realize I was doing such a poor job - lemme see. But not sure where you got width from,(only said height and length interchangeably)
I need the bellhousing length/height/whatever. From the back of the engine to where it mounts to the transmission. How much it adds overall. I should be somewhere between 5" and 7".
If the bellhousing is removed from the engine - and you set it on the ground face down,(large opening on the ground), and measured up to the top - that's what I need.
-
Yea, reading this again it isn't very clear.
Lemme try to fix that.
T-5 bellhousing measurement - I need it. It should be somewhere in the 5-7" range.
Ok, the explanation as to why I need/want it.
I have a G-Force G5R 5 speed transmission. Rated for 1300+hp/etc.. It was previously setup on a turbo L6 using the T5 bellhousing and an adapter plate,(btw the bellhousing and trans).
I want to run it behind my RB26. I have a custom bellhousing that fits the RB26 but is designed for the old school chevy 3 and 4 speeds/TH400.
I could make it work if I bought a new/shorter input shaft but would rather not. If I know how tall the T5 bellhousing is, I can work the existing adapter I have to ensure its the right overall length.
I don't think a Chevy bellhousing is the same height but don't know.
-
I'm trying to find the height of a T-5 bellhousing - anyone? I'm working on a different transmission,(G-force G5r), to my RB26. My bellhousing adapter I have is to adapt the RB to a TH400. However, its about 5 1/2" tall. The input shaft on the G5r right now was designed for a L28 with the T-5 bellhousing an an adapter,(that is about .75"). So I'm fairly certain I can make this work with the two of them - but I need to know the height of a T5 bellhousing,(or the first gen 5 speeds, type A and
. If you have it attached to the transmission - it would be the measurement to the back of the bellhousing, not the flat part inside the bellhousing,(not that there is much flat areas!).
Thanks - any help is greatly appreciated.
-
Still not sure why I'm not getting notifications of replies... anyone point me to other places where I might look for that setting? Already have it "watching" this topic at the top of the thread...
Pat - you are correct, I was wrong, its a front sump pan. Never used it, didn't check the way it "tilts" - it is a front sump.. Got rid of it.
@Fred - I was a Midshipman back in the 90's - quite a while ago,(in some respects). While I'm in the training command now, I'm instructing and am a reservist. I actually live up in Fort Smith, AR. Need to update my profile. I still come down to CC/Kingsville area to drill. This car is still down here and will be until about mid- Aug. I bought this car after I got through flight school and was in Norfolk.
@Jakester - look at the beginning of the thread - the motor was installed at one point! Now running - that's another issue, maybe a month or two down the road.
Late response to @dispeyon - I don't recall the exact thickness of the material for the pan - but its thick. 1/8" I think. Possibly 3/16? I went heavy duty the second time around.
No pictures right now - I'm busying going all over the place. Had lots of cussing going on getting valve seals on the head.... they are NOT the same size intake vs exhaust like many places sell...... $70 down the drain, we'll try that again....
Sorry for minimal pictures - once I get crackin on it again,(a week or two), they'll start again.
-Bob
-
Well, not pics of the car, but I did find I had some of the oil pans I'm unloading... Here they are:
Close up of where it rubbed the steering rack hold-down and bumper. I'm having it fixed by the guy that worked on my other oil pan pictured above.
-
Well, been working on the car for the past few weeks - finally finished/nearly finished a few other projects that were in front.
Ended up pulling the motor back out - going back to the RB25 trans and keeping it closer to stock. G-force trans is out for now - too little time and $$ to make it work.
Of note, I am selling the original oil pan - Brad Davies made for me - similar to the Thaggard pan, etc.. I'll take the first $250 for it shipped. No pickup - but I do have a drain plug welded on. I'll also include the Nissan gasket. Last, I did modify my pickup tube - and I'll include the pickup portion,(just the bottom screen box and a short section of tubing), to help fabricate to your own setup. I also have a RB20 rear sump pan I'd let go for $125 shipped - again, no pickup.
Took some pictures of the car out in the sun for the first time in a while,(its been hiding in the garage). I'll try to post them in a few days. Maaayyybee.. just maybe, this car might run under its own power this fall..... We can all dream can't we!
-Bob
-
Follow-up, my mistake in my post. I thought it was Jwink25 that posted the question - not texis30O - sorry! The tuning questions have to do with the big turbo that I sold - doesn't apply to yours as the setup I sold,(the subject of this thread), was setup for 400+ whp.
Jason - glad to see your finally moving forward with this - I saw you thought you might give it up/tried to sell it a while ago. I think it will be a very unique setup when all is said and done. Of course, you'll have to figure out a simple oil-return since you sold the Arizona-Zcar oil pan along with many other small items now that its been, what? 8+ years since that setup ran?! I look forward to seeing you finish it on here! Now I need to finish my RX-7 and finish the car that kit came out of!
-
Bob do you have any info on the TT that you had? Cam? Motor work? Any video? How was your throttle response? I am trying to figure where I would be as far as HP on my set-up. I will be in CC for the beach to bay race in May. I go every year.
Any info on the Turbo tom setup I had? - You have it now!
The cam was a mild turbo cam, didn't have the exact specs, but it was very mild, but more than stock. Motor was always bone stock turbo short block. He had been building up a very stout 3.0 block but sold the car to me before he installed it. When I pulled everything out, it was a junkyard turbo short block. No videos, but someone put a video up a long time ago of him running it in the 1/4 mi at the Z event in Atlanta,(the yearly 1/4 mi thing, was the first or second event). I can't find it anymore. It ran 11.1 or so at 130+ mph. He still had it setup for road racing and ran a 2.4+ second 60 foot time. On motor alone, I believe he said it was high 300's, like 390. You must install the water injection if you are going to not run N2O and you plan on high boost - i.e. 20+ psi. Throttle response, because on boost was so dramatic,(i.e. 400+ hp), you could tell when you weren't in boost, but look at the old dyno plot on my website - flat hp from 4000 rpm on - once your in boost, shifting doesn't make much difference. It goes! Now, that dyno plot with 520 rwhp was with a 100 shot of N2O. He was going through transmissions - so keep that in mind. He ran the T5's until they broke - always replaced them with a junkyard unit until he finally put the G-force G5R transmission in the car, which was capable of 1300+ hp. I now have that behind my RB26 in that car.
I'd guess that when you first get it running, it will be very rich for low boost operation since he tuned it for the 25-29 psi. I know that with the plugs it had were a very cold range and ran like dog crap till warmed up. The good thing about running that carb is anyone who knows how to tune V8's with those can tune your car. If you get a crazy bug up your shorts, you can switch to the Fuel injection throttle bodies - which gives you a lot more control over whats going on into the turbo.
If your down here for Beach-bay in May, drop me a line - # is 361-244-4419. I'm moving up to Fort Smith, AR, but don't leave until mid June. You can swing by and see the Super Datsun in its current state - still not finished, but making progress. I'm mainly working on my 94 RX-7 with an LS2/3,(ls2 block, ls3 heads).
I don't remember everything, but will help you out how I can.
-Bob
. 
L31 stroker too high compression
in Nissan L6 Forum
Posted
For pete's sake - you are chasing the end game w/o knowing what got you there. You said: "I do remember the AFRs being awfully high at WOT"
What were the AFR's? What is "awfully high"? 10:1 is fine for CR - and you shouldn't need to lower the CR just because - that may not be the issue. I have a 3.1 with 11:1 and run 93 octane. Timing is a factor, quality of gas, FUELING, etc..
Stop trying to tear apart your car before you figure out WHY it is pinging or running high AFR's - if it even pinging is at all. If there is no pinging - just very high AFR's, fix the fueling.
Lots of good advice in this thread - take your dyno printout with the AFR's listed and post it here. Or just tell us what it was in the mid-higher RPM range. Mid 12's would be fine. Above 13's and you are working lean - and that can burn valves and pistons/etc..
You,(and us), need more information before you go tearing apart your new motor- that RUNS.