Bob_H

What are the piston speeds in the stroker setup? Actually, I guess it really isn't a true "stroker" setup is it? All you are doing is putting a cylinder head on that changes the compression and number of cams. Can you give me the stroke/rod length specs for the 4G64 again please? What is the "stock" redline of that motor? I know that changing to aftermarket pistons changes that, but I'm curious now as to the piston speeds. I did so much calculating when I was building the 3.1 b/c of using the 240sx pistons. I wanted to not exceed the piston speed it was rated for, which was leading to rapid ring land erosion from the high speeds/loads. -Bob

Aaron, Total seal rings are a good product. If you were doing a complete rebuild of your motor I would consider them. HPC coatings should not flake off your manifold. If you are coating a used manifold,(not new), then they only coat the outside, for the carbon deposits don't allow the coating to properly adhere to the manifold surfaces. DAW- I always thought the same about the AT and MT turbo pumps. But evidence has been presented to me that shows both are the same, but still larger than the NA pump. Your assertion and my belief make sense because the Auto came with the oil cooler, not the MT. The specs are posted somehwere, but I seem to remember when I talked to Ron and NISSMO that he said all turbo pumps are the same size,(refering to the pump rotors). I still order the Auto pump though. I think I'll look into the diesel pump. That would be interesting. What is the year application of maxima? 82-83? -Bob {edit} Spelling and grammar -man too late for me, can't spell to save my life. {/edit}

Ok, so it looks the part of 700+ hp, but stock computer? Where did you get the info, from them directly or on a website? I, as many of us, would like to learn much more about this one. Of course I recognize that is why you are posting about it. And you are right, that is a seriously hogged out intake. -Bob ok, edit- I see that in their response you wrote them. I assume they are running a solid axle of some kind to keep running at those times/speeds. Yea, a lot of unknowns there that would be good to find out, like turbo size, CAM PROFILE(big one). only 24 psi and NO NOS for the RWHP rating they told you.

Ok, tranny length is the same, plus or minus an inch or two. That is fine, but with the engine being two cylinders shorter, I take that to mean the engine mounting bosses are much further back than the "stock Z" location...? And as far as the crankwalking, with how little I know about the designations of the 4G motors, it is very possilble I am getting them mixed up. Bottom line, it was the second gen turbo motor. not the NA ones,(which is what we are talking about as the bottom end - where I think my confusion was). Don't have the faintest clue what the designation is for the DOHC second gen turbo motors,(in the 2G bodies). That was what all my comments were about. Now, it appears that you can get a powerband that will be 200 some odd hp up through 400 and about the same torque from about 2500-6500. Does that sound far off? Sounds a lot like a V8. How is the turbo response for that kind of power? I am much more concerned with part throttle response as I roll on the gas coming out of a turn, vice flooring it and it coming on really quick. Tractability on the road course is key. If I get everything sorted out in the next few months,(i.e. sell the cars I need to), I may pick up a Galant or 1st gen DSM to start learning the motor and see if it is worth it. And speaking of tranys, I assume those with startions running the Supra 5 speed are not having problems with parts breaking? And the way you said the last few sentences, I take it to mean some are running Starion,(not Supra), trany's behind the 4G motors. How strong is the truck and Starion trans? Yea, the 83 ZX box will survive under 400-500 hp, but not for a long time, and is not good for road racing. To me, it sounds like the truck motor/tranny,(or startion one), the 4G63 DOHC head and associated parts would be the best setup,(as you said) with something like a Venom intake customized to have the inlet on the other side... Then you start getting into $$$, custom intake, bigger injectors, piping and intercooler, aftermarket exhaust manifold, and turbo, upgraded clutch/flywheel, engine managment, etc.. the opportunity to spend money is endless! -Bob Interesting. But I'm still thinking about the actual mounting of the motor mounts.

Bill, Thanks for the site. That was actually one of the only sites I found. What I am really looking for is someone who adapted the 6 speed, but I digress,(never did like my '90 Supra Turbo 5 speed shifter). It would also be nice to know the approx. lenght of the tranny vs. the stock Z's and the length of the engine from the tranny to the mounts as compared to the L6. Obviously a mid engined car is great, but then you get into long engine mounts to make it work, etc.. See, I can sell my stroker to help finance my next project,(someone gets a fully sorted stroker motor with triple SK's and dyno printouts, both engine and chassis plus all receipts, shouldn't have any problem selling it!) I was discussing my thoughts on the 4g64 swap with my engine builder,(who works on a fair amount of Mitsu motors), and he said that the 2G turbo motors are the ones he sees most often, and for the following reasons: Every one has some form of crank/bearning damage, usually fatal, i.e. block and crank,(nothing new to you there). What he has found is the internal check valve in the oil squirters in the newer blocks were failing, allowing all the oil pressure to dump out of the squirters, robbing the crank and its bearings of the oil they need. The thrust bearing usually takes it the worst b/c with little or no oil pressure, combined with use of the clutch, rubs the crank into and through the thrust bearing, ruining both the crank and the block. He said nearly every one he has seen in the shop has had that problem. He said the 63's are nearly bulletproof and he hasn't seen that problem even pushing hp in the high 300's at the wheels. Interesting side note and it matches what I read all over the internet about the later 2G turbo blocks. Can't tell you about the non-turbo's though, but I am sure it is an oil related problem.

BLKMGK, The previous post was talking about the mid-late 80's 300zx's which were all V-6 motors and the turbo 300zx's,(talking about Z31 cars), were single turbos on a V6. And yes, the piping and such was a chore, but there are people out there who have gotten 400+ hp to the wheels with that setup. It is not cheap though. -Bob

Ok, Bill you might be the most knowledgable but looking for all ideas on this one. I will be changing some things up on my Z, (the Datsun Workshop stroker mule), and am exploring several ideas, all oriented towards track events. I really like the idea of the 2.4 bottom end,(appropriately modified, i.e. new pistons/rods/oil squirters), and the 4g63 top end. What I am looking to find is links or info about how to make a tranny work behind it. Be it a T56, a Surpa tranny, or otherwise. I found very little with respect to that. Second, I know it can make 400-600 hp, but what kind of power with a 3-4000 rpm power band, (say 3000-6500/7000)? Sure, I could put 500hp to the wheels, for 200 rpm. Since I am at the track all the time,(currently it is mostly instructing), flexability is important. I would guess 350-400 hp would be a rough target, something like 300 at the wheels. Next, Bill, you addressed the different manifolds and that you thought the mighty max intake would work. Any further knowledge? This whole topic was discussed on the road race 240 thread, but I wanted to take it a step further and evaluate is feasability and potential cost. My plan would be some stand alone engine management unless someone has a better option. Custom turbo setup, some form of intercooler, an intake that works,(i.e. faces the right direction) and is close to bolt up, and the aformentioned engine combo backed up by some tranny. Let the ideas fly, -Bob Hanvey

My thought is something is loose. My first paragraphs are addressing the trans swap. The second addresses other issues. Assuming you changed nothing on the motor, and only swapped the tranny/etc.. unfortunatly, I seriously doubt it is anything internal to the tranny, so that means pulling the T5 again and re-checking torque on ALL the bolts. You said 240mm flywheel, so I assume you switched the whole shebang from a turbo motor. did you lighten the flywheel in the process? If so, and you find everything is bolted correctly, while you have it back apart, I would take the flywheel to another shop and have them check the balance of the assembly. I would also check the clutch/pressure plate assy to ensure nothing came apart/loose or is now missing. Ok, lets assume all of that is ok. Sure the motor starts up fine, but you have never driven it before, so I assume you had never started it either. Check the condtion of the front balancer/pulley. For all you know, the motor may be toast. If something happend to break the input shaft of the auto and break the flex plate, I would imagine some serious force got back into the motor. Before I describe this next option for checking things, I give this disclaimer. If you do this, you assume ALL responsiblity for anything that happens to your car. That being said, when you have the tranny completely removed,(flywheel, etc.. as well). Start it up again. You will have to/need to put a jack of some kind under the back portion of the engine. However, b/c you had some serious shaking before, it is very possible that it is still there, and once you start the motor, it may shake right off the jack stand. Yes, the two motor mounts will hold it, but that is a lot of stress on those two small rubber mounts, and one may break loose. See why I put a disclaimer at the beginning? I would only attemt this if you are sure it has nothing at all to do with the tranny and run out of options. Even then, I would explore some other choices as well. Bottom line, you have to drop the tranny and check to see if anything is loose/ not torqued. -Bob H

UGH!! I just typed a long reply it it was delted by some stupid Windows keystroke! Ok, time to start over - this is a bit more abbreviated. Yes, an oil cooler is a great idea. Reduction of internal temps in the engine mean longer life for the parts/motor. In aircraft engines, the hotter you run the engine, the shorter time in between required overhauls. While we don't overhaul our motors based on how hot we operate them, using that principle can help our motors last longer. Besides, max power production is usually at 180-195 degrees F oil temp. As you start to get hotter, the oil doesn't work as well,(not going into detail there). So bottom line, yes, it is a great idea and I would do it, esp. for a turbo motor. A couple of things to think about. First, if you are not already, use Synthetic oil. Synthetic oil can withstand higher temps than conventional oil. Most oils start to break down at about 300 degrees. Conventional oils turn into a sludge,(coking), think of black sludge. This blocks passages, etc.. Synthetic oil turns into ash, which can be transported by the oil into the filter. This is part of the reason why motors that have been run exclusively on synthetic are so clean when you take them apart. No sludge. In my BMW, before I added an oil cooler I was seeing oil temps of 275-285 on the track. After the cooler, I saw a steady 190 on the street,(vice nearly 250), and 235 max on the track. I talked about the temp oils start to break down. Here is some other info. Most people measure the oil temp in the oil pan. The highest oil temp is in the cylinder head, and is usually 20-35 degrees higher than the oil sump where you are measuring. So anytime you start to see 270+ in the oil pan, back off and cool the motor down. Second thing to make sure of, that have a turbo oil pump, (puts out more volume). If you already do, make sure it is in good condtion. You have just added pipes and radiators to the oil system, and the pump must now circulate it through that as well as the motor. If your pump isn't up to the task, oil pressure drops and you start to lose engine parts, like bearings, etc.. Go for it. -Bob Hanvey

Ok, I see how you slotted the tranny, but how did you slot the trans mount? I guess you mean the ears where it bolts to the tranny? So exactly how loose is it? And would you do it that way again? -Bob

Look at the intake, 6 runners on each side. The 6th exhaust pipe is hidden behind, runs from the back of the motor. It is 3 into 1 twice on each side. But I agree, looks are deceiving. -Bob

For 2 + years was a straight daily driver, nothing more nothing less. A fast daily driver, but daily nonetheless. Now that I have a BMW M coupe and a few other cars, I am slowly transfering the Datsun over to track duty. Not racing, but DE's. I am lucky enough to instruct with a few groups, i.e. free track time. So choice number 2 for me. But, as I start to excercise the car on the track, we'll see if the power remains enough for me. As long as I can still outrun everyone, I can settle for less power. Once that is no longer true... turbo, v8, etc.. who knows? -Bob Hanvey

Rick, Saw in another post that you used the turbo ZX cross member for your 77. Did you still have to cut and weld to make it work in your 77? I ask b/c with me getting ready to put the T5 in place of the 3rd roasted 83 NA box I always assumed I would have to cut and re-weld the rear tranny cross memeber. I am interested in how you made that work. -Bob Hanvey

No, you cannot fit solid lifters into a P-90A with hydraulic lifters. They are two different sizes. I don't have the link available, but on zhome somewhere shows the two next to each other. The hydraulic lifter is significantly larger in diameter than a standard lifter. Some have fabricated inserts to allow them to retro-fit the solid lifters. Not worth the money in my opinion. Either find good hydraulic lifters,(hard to do), or find a solid lifter head. If your existing lifters are fine, stick with them. They will work fine with a turbo cam, and even small aftermarket cams. I am running a .460 lift, 270/280 duration cam with the hydraulic lifters. No problem up through 7k. -Bob Hanvey

I just installed the Euro damper on my 3.1, which had several Woodruff key issues. Rather than order new ones, I picked up a few from Z barn. They were a tight fit, and I tapped them down into the crank with a wooden block to ensure they were fully seated,(and more importantly, flat). I took a small metal file and lightly took the edges off. Last, I took a triangular and flat file and went at the euro damper. What I saw on my new damper was small metal casting/cutting remains. I made sure it was smooth all the way on sides and top, with a slight bevel on the back where it first encoutners the woodruff key. It was still a tight fit, but once it was started I used the bolt to tighten it down. As I started tightening the bolt, I would take a flathead screwdriver and place it on the end of the exposed part of the woodruff key and tap it back down. You can only do this for a short time before it is covered up, but it ensures a good fit and no walking. This has been my standard procedure after I ruined a set of woodruff keys and one damper. -Bob

I would offer up a yes and no to double clutching only being to a lower gear. Having the luxury,(or sentance depending on how cool you thought it was at 16), of driving a '30 Model A to high school. I double clutched both ways,(hmm....bi-clutching...naw, sounds wrong.) If you held the clutch in while upshifting normally, the engine would take forever to come down in RPM enough to match the gears. Hence, how I was originally taught how to double clutch. Clutch in to pull out of gear, pedal back out and wait.......... Clutch pedal back in to engage gear. The "art" was the other way, knowing how much to rev the engine up on a downshift and not crunch the gears. Enough of dating myself,(wait, I'm not even that old!). -Bob

I have never heard of that. Where can I find out more info about it? It most certainly is interesting..... -Bob

Ok, Wilwoods obviously don't have dust shields but do any of the Outlaw calipers? I will be doing some form of serious upgrade for my road racing,(non class important), but am not willing to deal with rebuilding on a regular basis. I drive in all kinds of condtions, rain, mud, etc.. and no dust shields on the brakes would be asking for problems. Mike? Ross? Any thoughts for a serious upgrade with dust shields? Or experience of driving for several years without them? -Bob

I have had discussions with many people about how I have found N42 heads on early turbo motors and other oddities like that. Most don't believe. You have obviously seen that. Anyways, the exhaust liners are not really a bad thing. Check out Paul's comments on my head page. http://www.geocities.com/row4navy/head2.html It is a myth that Bryan Little and I helped to perpetuate far too much. Yes, for 100% performance, i.e. race motors, they are not good. However, most of us are building for street use, with the occasional race. Just food for thought. -Bobby

People who have measured the Maxima N-47 head claim it is in the 39-41cc range. CR of course depends on dish size, etc.. -Bobby

DAW, Well, I have never heard of a LD blocked stroker. I guess you could do it, but here are some thoughts. First, that only yields a 2992 cc motor, not much bigger than a stock L28. Second, a friend did a sonic bore test of a LD block to see how much material you could remove. The thought was with it being a diesel that "theoretically" it should have more "meat" to take out. Well, that proved incorrect, as it had the same average thickness as the L28, so a 3mm overbore was the max, even pushing it. And while the weight was fairly similar, you have all kinds of issues making the head work with the block not to mention the timing cover, etc... In the end, all you get is a different rod/stroke ratio, at nearly the cost of a stroker, if not more! I would be interested to learn more about anyone who has done the LD block stroker - reasons, how it worked, etc.. -Bob Hanvey

Hoover, The dynojet is is more prevelant because it is cheaper. The Dynojet 248 has two large intertial rollers,(I think 2400 or 2800 lbs each). Other dyno's like Mustang use a eddy current or some type of resistance to resist acceleration,(that sounds good! ha). Basicly an electric motor to put a load on the car/motor - but an elaborate setup which can cost. They tend to be more expensive, up to $150K on the high end, while a dynojet is much cheaper. And they have two types of dynojets, one is the 248(H - which is a heavier set of rollers), which can be above or below ground, and one they have specifically for inground, which is a lighter/newer design. You can try others, but expect a lower hp reading. Dynojets tend to be the highest of the various chassis dyno's. Some food for thought about your Z, with it weight in the 2000 lb range. The following is an excerpt from a mustang dyno user site: However, the downside to this measuring form is that, in the real world, the vehicle is working harder than what is required in accelerating the rollers on a Dynojet. Between the weight of the car itself, elevation changes, and surface friction, the actual environment the engine works in during use is quite different from its experience on an inertia type dyno. This is an important factor to consider when interpreting the hp gain of a particular modification or performance product. For example, lots of ignition timing can be thrown at an engine to produce big hp numbers on an inertia dyno, but the same ignition setting can result in less hp when the engine is actually required to work on the street. Under load, (on the street or on a load dyno) pre-ignition or detonation can occur, tripping the knock sensors and causing the ECU to roll back the timing to less than stock. This is not good for power. Another example is fueling. Leaner fuel maps may work well numbers-wise when subjected to the relatively gentle inertia rollers, but can be disastrous when under load on the street. I have found that cars tuned on load type dynos tend to run better than dynojets. My experience. -Bob Hanvey

The url is no good. The purpose of the intake heating hose is to warm the carbs/intake air and prevent carb icing/help emissions stuff. It will be no problem if you disconnect them. -Bob

John, I was just reading the new GRM and have a question about the new SM2 class. On page 16, it states that SM2 limits are as follows: forced induction ohc - 3.0L, Forced induction pushrod - 4.0L, and NA engines can be a max of 6.0, rotary engines 1.5L. Is this info wrong, or has it changed? I also found this: http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Rules/street_modified.html -Bob -well, i just took a thorough look at that page and see that you are shooting for the 1900 lb limit. the extra .1L the full 3.1L would give you would not offset the 300lb higher min weight. I think I see now.

Actually Tim, I haven't gone over your setup! But to answer your question Chase -first, you really don't want 8500 rpm. There is a reason you don't see any race L6 motors turning much over high 7k rpms. Once you start to go above 8k rpm in an L6, with its long crank, strange harmonics start to take over, reducing power. And as Tim pointed out, the turbo produces its peak power much lower in the rev range - which is easier on rotating parts. If you are going the turbo route, I would stick with the L28, no stroking. There is a lot involved in doing it correctly, (see my site), and to turbo it as well.....you are looking at big $$$$. Just proper tuning and turning up the boost will more than make up for the little bit of extra power the stroker can provide. But you asked what makes it better? Leverage. The longer stroke means the piston will exert a similar force on a longer arm, meaning more turning power, or torque. Granted, that is grossly over-simplified, but it will sufice. Stick with proven combos and you will be happy, i.e. a L28 with a turbo and good tuning. You can get your 400 rwhp with low rpm and without stroking. -Bob