Dan Baldwin

Tee hee, Jmort and I are in total agreement! For one thing, to argue semantics , shorter stroke doesn't make the engine WANT to rev higher. In general, it can make for an engine that will TOLERATE higher revs, but not enough more revs to make up for the displacement lost. Also, in another sense, instead of making for an engine that WANTS to rev higher, shorter stroke makes for an engine that *NEEDS* to rev higher to make the same power. BUT, While engine torque varies directly with stroke (displacement), theoretical rev potential (assuming the limiting factor is piston acceleration), only increases (roughly) with the inverse of the SQUARE ROOT of stroke. i.e., reduce stroke by 5%, you could GENERALLY expect to gain only ~2.5% more revs up top, but you will LOSE 5% torque. Basically, you can expect to lose power to the tune of ~2.5%. And, again, word is the rpm is limited more by crank torsional harmonics than by peak piston acceleration anyway.

What do you mean by "freely revving"? If you mean the ability to increase revs quickly, then a stroker, not a destroker, is the way to go. If you mean maximum rev potential, you will *theoretically* gain ~300-500rpm headroom up top with an L24 crank vs. L28 or LD28 (i.o.w., not nearly enough increased rev potential to make up the displacement lost), but the word is that torsional harmonics limit a well-built L-series to ~8000-8500rpm regardless of stroke. I don't think the destroker is a good idea at all, unless you're building to a displacement limit.

15+psi turbo? Nitrous? Another L6 under the hood?

You probably need: 1) more negative camber up front 2) reduced toe-in at the rear After I lengthened my front control arms and corrected the rear toe with eccentric bushings, I had to remove the rear bar I got so much more oversteer/less understeer. As for tire pressure, too much is bad for grip. Too little is also bad for grip.

Shocks will go a long way to limiting squat. Too much spring rate (and commensurately increased damping) will not hook up as well. The S30 rear geometry is not as squat-prone as semi-trailing arm IRS setups are. Even with 330hp, I'd say 200-250 lb/in springs with good shocks and you won't have too much squat.

FWIW, the front wheel opening is SUPPOSED to be higher than the rear, it's a larger opening. With the rockers level, the top of the front opening will be higher. This is true for a lot of cars.

Patron? Don Julio (anejo) fer me. Actually, I usually cheap out and get Sauza Hornitos, but it's only good for Margaritas. I need to be rich enough (or enough of a drunk) that $60/bottle doesn't faze me... Anyway, I wouldn't have any qualms about an N42 head at 10:1 with a mild cam, even with 91 pump gas instead of 93.

Check the windshield wiper orientation. It's right-hand drive.

AK-Z, N47 supposedly has the same chambers as the N42. But the ZCCNewEngland club car has a 9.8:1 CR flat-top/N47 build that has to run with timing retarded to 26deg on pump gas. Still makes very good power, though (164rwhp). With a mild cam, power should go up a goodly amount due to moving the torque curve up AND the ability to run more advance. I don't know if I see the purpose in shaving that much out of an N-head and then running dished pistons to make the CR reasonable. That is what Norm did with his 2.9, but I think it was more from working with what he had available to MAXIMUM effect rather than some master scheme:)

With a cam, I bet you won't have to retard timing at all. If you do, I'll buy you a shot of tequila next time I'm in San Luis Obispo:) FWIW, I ran my 3.1 with a stock N42 head shaved ~.010", stock cam, and 2mm head gasket, ~10.3:1 CR, at 35deg advance, with no pinging for years.

Cool! But, um, er, 125 ft-lb at 9300 rpm is 221hp, right? Looking forward to further developments

I say go with yer original plan: N42 unshaved or lightly shaved, flat-top pistons, Nissan head gasket. DONE. 9.8+:1 CR, with a cam, no problemo. Fun and reliable. FWIW, the LEngine calculator does OK, but doesn't correctly account for shaving dished pistons. Definitely need to double check it.

Yes, 3x2 45mm SKRacing carbs w/ 38 or 39mm venturis. Haven't been back to the drags. When I went a few years back, ran a 13.5 at 106.5, then 103, then 101, then 97. Fuel pressure was all over the place, clogged filter.

KA24E pistons machined flat, with valve reliefs.

Tee hee, here we go! FWIW, please note that I've NEVER suggested that the N-heads are superior, or that quench is worthless. Only that respectable results have been achieved on L-series motors with no-quench, open-chambered heads. My setup has NO quench. the pistons are ~.003-.004 below the deck, I've got a 1.17mm thick head gasket, so .050" between piston and head deck, a moderately shaved (~.010 or so) open-chamber N42 head. 11:1 CR, big cam. No pingie, no problem. Max power on 93 pump at 34 - 38 deg. ignition advance, max power on race fuel (less than on pump fuel!) at 38deg plus advance. However, Z-ya's L28/flattops/N47 build (should be 9.8:1) for the club race car DOES have to run with timing retarded to 26deg, but STILL made a very respectable 164 rwhp at the dyno (stock head, stock cam). Anyway, long/short, I don't think you have to worry about running the N42. As for the valve seats, either replace 'em, or keep up with your valve clearances. For the years I ran with stock seats, I didn't have any problems. Regarding your "early" E88, it has the closed chambers? In a very old issue of "SportZ Magazine, D.L. Potter said this was the best-flowing L-series head. He oughta know. If you do use that head, you might go with the bigger L28-size valves. My .02!

Hmmm, mine's been running fine for years with the goofy little micro K&N filter on the valve cover. Venting back to the air filter is certainly a better idea to prevent fumage into the cabin, but as far as performance goes it shouldn't make any difference.

What's wrong w/ just a filter on the valve cover? As long as you don't mind a little oily fumigation in the cabin, it's no different from what that li'l tube normally sees, which is the inside of the air filter (no vacuum in dere a'tall).

Slide rule, I can barely use a calculator! So, how freely DOES air flow from above the head to the crankcase? Is the pcv valve there merely to sort of encourage air through the engine's innards rather than just letting it stagnate? If there's any reasonable flow between top of head and crankcase, it would seem the suction from the pcv valve wouldn't be drawing any sort of vacuum at all in the crank case, only ensuring that air comes in at the valve cover and out through the pcv=>exhaust. I always thought the idea was to provide some small amount of negative pressure (vacuum) in the crankcase for reduced pumping losses. For that to be true the passages between the air volumes would have to be fairly restrictive, no?

It's been... a while since *I've* had one apart.

Ah yes, the large drain hole in the back of my head...

"RPM gauge"?! Bwahahahahaha!! I thought that spelling was only used in the 350Z forum on ZCar.com. No, wait, they actually use "rpm indicator, and "mph gauge".

Then again, when you pour in oil, I guess it's gotta get into the crankcase SOMEhow!

That "big ol hole" does not go to the crankcase, only to the space between the front of the block and the timing cover.

For the record, the pcv valve goes between the intake side of whatever throttle(s) you have to the crank case. The thingie on top is only a vent, it's not acting to draw a vacuum inside the valve cover, which would do nothing for you. A vacuum in the CRANKCASE, however...

I had a Schneider cam give up a lobe on me after ~16 months or so. They still replaced it under warranty. When I got the new cam, I checked to see that all the oil dribble holes in the lobes were drilled through. Sure enough, one of the holes only barely made it through to the rifle drilled passage in the middle of the shaft, just a pinpoint. So I drilled it through. I told them about it but I have to wonder if they're still not drilling all the dribble-holes all the way through...