Dan Baldwin

I'd LOVE to see the dyno runs, too! FWIW, here's my 255rwhp run. DANG, can't seem to get the image location, go here: http://www.classiczcars.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=6881&size=big&sort=1&cat=500

I guess I've been overfilling mine (Nissan Comp), I can get almost TEN quarts in it. That's $50 worth of Mobil1 Ten gets it to the fill line on the dipstick, but filled to there it just pukes it out the crankcase vent tube into the intake at the track, "correcting" the level to halfway on the dipstick. A little nervous to run it at the low line, but hell, that's still a large volume of oil down there...

Fricking AWESOME, Ken. Sounds KILLER! A much deeper exhaust note than I'd expect. The supercharger whine doesn't sound like what I'd expect. "Hey mister, your car sher sounds funny..." Bringing it to the convention track day (please please please)?

Brian, Fricking EXCELLENT numbers. Bringin' er to Watkins Glen for the convention? Don't raise the rear, PLEASE! This never looks right. The rear wheel openings are smaller than the fronts (rear wheels don't have to turn), which leads some to believe the rear is riding too low. It isn't. Dave, FWIW, I'm running 165 main fuel jets and 190 air jets. OER Racing 45mm carbs, 38 or 39mm chokes (39 I think...) You will of course want to home in on the appropriate jetting while at the dyno. Maybe go down a couple of sizes on both fuel and air and see where that gets you, then go from there. I bet you're right about another 10-15hp waiting for you with SIMPLE timing and jetting.

N42 head, 11:1 N/A, 93oct pump gas. That's with a fairly big cam, btw (~305deg/.550").

I have a set of 45mm OERs on my 3.1. Bought 'em used a couple of years ago (edit: from a guy who bought them used in Japan). No problems with them, engine runs like a banshee over 3500. You can use Mikuni PHH main air jets, and Mikuni 102/221 (?) small round motorcycle main fuel jets (same type as in my SV650). If you want to swap emulsion tubes, you have to get them from OER in Japan, they don't have a dealer or distribution in the US. Mine aren't exactly optimized for around town, she won't idle worth a damn. But I hardly ever drive it except to and from the track, anyway:)

Thanks, all. I missed Lime Rock, I had work work to do anyway:( I'm sure it woulda made it OK, but no reason to tempt karma... I'm running the plain bronze bushing. The noise doesn't seem to vary much with rpm. Does it vibrate? All the time! I don't drive the car much, so it's hard to make a relative comparison. No prob engaging all gears. Stupid thing is, when I had the engine rebuilt last year I had the bolts safety-wired, but when I had to do an emergency clutch swap at Watkins Glen last year, and had the flywheel surfaced also, I didn't re-safety-wire. Having had the bolts back out on me a coupla times, I think I'm gonna have to have a look in there (groan). ttfn,

(just posted this on the IZCC list, too) Don't wanna drop the tranny just yet, want to get opinions/thoughts/guesses. From a stop, I put it in 1st, as I begin to lift off the clutch pedal I hear and feel (at the gear shift and clutch pedal) a buzz/light vibration in the clutch/tranny area. Doesn't make the noise with the clutch pedal to the floor, and only does it for a small range of pedal travel near the bottom of pedal travel (maybe 15% of range of motion, starting ~10% off the floor) . With the clutch near the floor, the buzz is a lower frequency, as pedal comes up and clamping force increases the frequency goes up slightly. Not a huge range of frequency, though. At a certain level of clamping force the noise ceases (though clutch is still slipping). It does this with the car motionless (foot on brake) or if the car is allowed to inch forward. The buzz/vibration frequency does not vary with engine revs much. And sometimes it doesn't do it (maybe 15% of the time). I don't think it's the throwout bearing because it seems to me it would be noisy with the pedal to the floor instead of when I start to engage the clutch. I'm feeling a little reluctant to drive 150 miles to Lime Rock for a two-day track event with it doing this. I have in the past had flywheel bolts back out, ultimately hanging up on the clutch disk and locking the clutch up (wouldn't slip). I don't know if that's what's happening now, though. Ideas? P.S.: I'm *NOT* dropping the tranny tonight!

My humble apologies. I do believe your rationale is flawed IN MY OPINION, for the reasons I gave, but I shouldn't have resorted to hyperbolic schoolyard rhetoric to say so. I don't consider myself to be a "liberal", except perhaps in the current context it is used in (meaning anyone critisizing the administration). The word "liberal" is being used ever-increasingly to short-circuit political discourse and REASONING, as 60+% of the nation has been programmed to immediately respond negatively when they hear the word and cease all rational thought. Anyway, I'm frequently seen as a conservative amongst liberals and as a liberal amongst conservatives. I think throwing those terms around willy-nilly (did I really just say that?) almost never results in intelligent thoughtful debate. This does not affect my points made in my post above, which remain valid. That both sides are willing to use the "are you better off now..." in attempt to gain advantage doesn't validate it as a method of choosing a President. I didn't HAVE a candidate in the election. I had two buffoons, one KNOWN by me to be dangerous to Constitutional liberties here at home and the general well-being of the world at large, and Kerry. Neither was my choice. I wouldn't DREAM of taking the advice of either on whom to vote for at face value. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I don't think NAFTA was good for anyone living "on the ground" in North America, but the war in Iraq, and the way it was justified, not to mention the lack of any realistic planning, well you know how I feel about that. Then to see memos from Ashcroft practicing up on exonerating the President for any and all forms of torture, to see American citizens held without due process, to see the administration take full advantage of a wounded nation's sense of "patriotism" as an excuse to get into a needless and costly war (congress, including Kerry, are equally to blame here for all-too-eagerly handing over THEIR Constitutional authority to the Pres), well it's just beyond anything I'd have ever expected of a president from either party. The consolidation of power within the Executive Branch is beyond frightening. Do I think it's the End of the World? No, it's just the beginning of the end of Western Civilization and it's ideals. I think we're getting into a region of instability, where the policies of the admin will encourage terrorism, which will JUSTIFY to most the administrations insistence on further reducing civil liberties. We, as a free nation, are screwed. IMO! (hope I'm wrong!)

Utter bullshit reason to vote for W, for a number of reasons (here are a few): 1) All things remaining exactly the same, if you're smart you SHOULD be far better off than you were four years ago. 2) The effects of a President's policies often aren't seen for years after they're instituted 3) I might be only speaking for myself here, but I don't think personal gain, even if it WERE capable of being totally attributed to the President, is nearly enough to justify voting for someone who got us into a needless war under false pretenses, simultaneously stretching our military thin, costing the lives of our soldiers, costing the lives of many innocent Iraqi civilians, costing us $100s of billions of dollars, making us MORE a target for terrorism, inspiring MORE to become terrorists, alienating us from the rest of the free world, yadda yadda yadda, all in the name of a TOTALLY NEEDLESS WAR. Even if I'd made 10s of millions of dollars directly due to W's being president, I STILL wouldn't have voted for the man.

Lotsa ways we could reduce dependency, but we certainly haven't gotten any "leadership" in that direction. Any Iraqi oil we get now will have to have the added costs of the war (dollars and HUMAN LIVES) factored in. Were we really that desperate for it? I hardly think so. Lotsa reasons in W's, Cheney's, Rumsfeild's, Wolfowitz', etc. pea-brains for the war, I'm sure. Mainly, they WANTED to, and weren't about to let the facts that there were no justifiable reasons or that they had no practical realistic plan stop them. Dumb idea, incredibly bad timing, poorly planned. They simply dismissed any rational explanations as to why it wasn't going to be NEARLY as easy as they presented it to be and committed us to it anyway. They're either morons or they're (I would hope unwitting) servants of evil. I suspect some combination of the two. Welcome to "The Endarkenment".

It's not a "vast right-wing conspiracy". It's just plain unadorned conflict of interest and profiteering. I mean, he instituted policies (very POOR policies) that directly benefited Halliburton, went on to become CEO (not a very good one either) of Halliburton, and then as veep was a major influence to get us into a big spendy war with Iraq that profits one company above all, and you're telling me there's no conflict of interest there? Blind.

It's funny because it's TRUE! Mike, calling others sheep (sheeople, anyway)? Those in glass houses... BTW, I totally agree with your assessment of "the media says it, therefore it IS" for a lot of people. But you're mistaken to believe they were slanted against W, quite the opposite, they gave his administration a remarkably free ride despite obvious poor judgment and major screwups of the highest order. LIES?! How 'bout WMD in Iraq? How 'bout Iraq as a real threat to us? how 'bout "we'll only need 40,000 in post-war Iraq"? OK that last one might just have been willful dismissal of any pre-war assessment that was less than outrageously naively optimistic. I put lies that get our troops and 10s of thousands of innocents killed for no good reason in a different category from whatever lies you're ascribing to the Democratic ticket (not that I am or was *any* kind of fan of that party or that ticket). I didn't need Michael Moore to know this administration was and is full of SHIT. They ARE assholes. Plenty of sheep that will continue to worship them now matter WHAT they do. Unbfrickinglievable.

Regarding media bias, there is such a thing. It's not "liberal", and it's not "conservative". It is $$$$$. When W started on about a war in Iraq, my first response was, WTF? And then the "liberal" media offered little to NO objective criticism of the idea. Hmm, why not? here are three reasons: 1) afraid to appear "unpatriotic" 2) they remembered what a boon gulf war I was to CNN. Big ratings=>$$$$, woohoo! 3) gummint could (and SHOULD) come in and bust up the monopolistic media conglomerates, particularly if they voice any objective dissent Any stylistic bias they had did not prevent them from doing their damndest to make war in Iraq seem both inevitable and like a good idea. Which it wasn't. News outlets in this country are ENTERTAINMENT, pure and simple. If it's good for the ratings, that's all that matters. Any detectable "liberal" bias is only skin-deep. The outlets are all owned by megacorporations that know which side their bread is buttered on. Consider the owner of the conlglomerate that runs CBS openly said in Time magazine he wanted W. to win, as that would be better for giant media conglomerates! You aren't being informed, you're being infotained, and manipulated. And not necessarily in the direction you think...

So, in your first post on this board you decide to insult folks who believe in God? Er, I think he's only insulting those who are "dimwitted". I'm a believer (though probably not in the same grey-bearded sometimes-wrathful/sometimes friendly-like partisan "God" that seems to have a lot of popularity these days), and I don't feel insulted. Regarding Halliburton [edit: this is in reply to tannji], Cheney's implemented policy to single-source contracting out of logistical support for the military TO Halliburton under Bush I pretty much ensured they'd get all that money. You have to be BLIND not to see blatant conflict of interest. Cheney gets the policy implemented, goes on to CEO the one company it had the greatest ($$$$$$$) impact on, then as Veep encourages a needless war which profits, who again? We should spend the money to keep the military more self-sufficient, for a variety of reasons. One being to reduce/eliminate profiteering, another being to prevent private US citizens being lured into what amounts to combat duty for $$$$ (small change for Halliburton, but a lot compared to what actual combat troops would make for the same tasks).

Ah, but John it is YOU who've allowed yourself to be manipulated by emotion. What does being associated with whiners have to do with it? I for one would prefer an "emotion" to W. An "emotion" isnt' as likely to get the retarded idea that it can get us into war based on deliberately misleading the populace and get away with it. I voted not based on emotion but because I wanted to deny W the opportunity for leading this country into further misadventures. Why do so many have to feel like they're on a "winning" team? Both teams are hopelessly corrupt and in the pockets of corporate American and foreign interests anyway. We lose either way, but W. is just dangerous to the world abroad and personal liberty here at home. "Patriot Act III: Lockdown of a Nation" is surely on its way, in the aftermath of the next attack on us which the administration's policies all but assure there will be. Microchip implants for everyone!

JohnC Enjoyed reading your snippet. So rare to read candid honest assessments. Brings up an interesting problem with the way we "choose" our candidates. I'm of the mind that in the primaries and in the election, polls should open EVERYWHERE at the same time and close at the same time. Our primary system of having states vote on potential candidates weeks apart from one another is entirely ridiculous. They should at LEAST be required to be on the same day everywhere. Also good to read an account that doesn't reduce it to red team vs. blue team. In my mind they are both equally culpable. We've got some serious soul-searching to do as a nation if we're to get back on the road to a better (to me, a more small-"l"-libertarian) democracy. Unfortunately we are by and large a lot of self-satisfied fat smug idiots all to eager to pick a "side" and blindly adhere to it without realizing that 90% of us don't really HAVE a 'side" beholden to and representing us. The ruling class is swayed by one thing: $$$

Unfortunately the idea of "checks and balances" has seen ever greater erosion as the executive gets more and more greedy and crass. That the public and the congress seem to gladly tolerate this makes it all the more disturbing. Congress has repeatedly gleefully approved "presidential authority" as a means to avoid its constitutional responsibility (War goes badly: blame the pres.! War goes good: see we did the right thing!) The INTENT of the Constitution was that ONLY the legislative branch should be able to declare war, and ONLY the judicial branch could determine who is imprisoned, ensuring due process of law. The Executive continues to make inroads into congressional and judicial authority. Just like its external foreign policies, this administration's internal domestic policies are hegemonic in nature and in the end couterproductive and idiotic. They ONLY understand the direct application of brute force. It ain't workin', and it ain't GONNA work. There are often much better ways to get desired end results than throwing soldiers at problems and perceived problems abroad and throwing freedom/privacy/liberty-sapping legislation at problems and perceived problems at home. This administration has no understanding of REAL power to exert influence through more moral, ethical, Constitutional, and SUBTLE means. But of course since the public at large can only see things in Football terms of winning and losing, they get what they want. Rah rah rah!

Crazy280, it is not just semantics. Torque is not work. They do have the same units, but they are not the same. 1 lb-ft of WORK is the work required to raise one pound one foot. 1 lb-ft of TORQUE is the torque from 1 pound of force on a one foot moment arm (no motion required). Consider an electric motor, where you CAN have zero rpm and a large torque value with no work being done. IMO, power defined as "torque over time" confuses the issue and perpetuates the mistaken notion that it is engine TORQUE gives a car acceleration and that engine POWER, since it is "torque over time", gives a car top speed. This is incorrect, it is POWER (same at engine and at road) that gives both immediate acceleration and top speed. "Torque over time" gives the false impression that you have to WAIT for it, that time has to elapse to experience it, when in fact power is an instantaneous rate, and acts instantaneously. IMO it is more instructive to describe power as the instantaneous accelerative force available at a given speed. Think of rw power as road speed multiplied by accelerative force at the tires. This puts the "rate" into something tangible, road speed, and allows you to think of acceleration as being proportional to POWER (same at engine and road), and not *engine* torque (very different from torque at the wheels). GabeRoc, you're right about the dyno measuring the TORQUE (actually a FORCE acting at a DISTANCE) at the wheels and multiplying by rear wheel SPEED to get rear wheel power. The dyno doesn't have to know anything about the engine rpm or gearing to get engine hp applied to the wheels. It does have to know rpm to get *engine* torque, as you say. Right on about maximizing engine POWER being the key to maximum acceleration. You should shift far enough beyond the POWER peak that you don't lose or gain power when you shift to the next gear. This method can have you shifting such that rpm is always above the engine's torque peak. Looking at Bastaad's torque/power, the power being that flat gives a VERY broad rpm range, which will make it a lot easier to either stay in a lower gear or higher gear more of the time. Less shifting required to maintain performance. This is good. But there's a TON more power potential if it can be made to breathe better above 4000 rpm. If the power plateau could be bumped up to 5-6k vs. 4-5k, it would make something like 20% more power! That's gotta be a killer street motor, though.

You don't need forged pistons, save your $$$. As for what hp you *could* get (possibly very different from what you WILL get), I'd say 180+rwhp/210crankhp is certainly achievable. I'd definitely go with the bigger 280Z/ZX valves (not sure which you should use in a Max head, though...), or just use an N42, N47, shaved P79, shaved P90. JohnC, You sure the 280s can have the same 9.5:1 CR as the 240s?

The "data" is indeed out there. Hell, it's been in plain sight. What is sadly lacking is competent objective reportage in the media (EVERYTHING is reduced to red vs. blue), and the ability to add 2 + 2 in the general populace. , indeed.

It does take some big nutts to order someone into a mission that will result in death. To infer that Bush did this out of some kind of bravado or macho with no regard to the casualties is an irrational, emotional arguement. W's "nutts" weren't big enough to get him into Vietnam, but they were plenty big enough to cavalierly send today's military into a war in Iraq without a reasonable plan. Criminally incompetent idiocy.

I can't for the life of me figure out why W has this "bad-ass" image. I mean, here's a guy who went out of his way to join the Guard to avoid Vietnam (can't blame him for that), who then distracts the entire military from the task at hand (finding and bringing to justice our attackers) to dedicate the majority of our military efforts (ironically INCLUDING GUARD TROOPS!) in an obscenely costly, needless, and counterproductive war in Iraq. It doesn't take "nutts" to send other people's kids out to fight/kill/die in an unbelievably poorly thought-out war in Iraq. It does take a fair amount of willful obstinate stupidity and a complete disregard for morality, ethics, common sense, and the sacrifices it requires of OTHERS. Where were W's "nutts" when we needed a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan/Pakistan border region? 9/11 was his EXCUSE to get us into his pet project of invading Iraq. Unfortunately the administration had NO IDEA what they were getting us into, only seeing the rosiest possible outcome (troops being greeted with flowers and such). IDIOTS.

500 lb-ft of torque is a twisting force equivalent to a 500 lb force acting on a 1ft moment arm or a 1 lb force acting over a 500ft moment arm. Note that it doesn't necessarily imply any movement, or lack thereof. What you've described (if the 1ft you mention is VERTICAL, that is) is WORK, which is in the same units as torque, but is a DIFFERENT quantity. You can have torque with zero work being done. Power is the rate of work. You can't have power with no work being done. Power isn't exactly "torque over time", but rather the instantaneous rate of work. Power is the more important value, as it tells you the whole story. Power is the force applied at the ground to accelerate the car multiplied by the speed. Torque is incomplete, it doesn't tell you the whole story. Rear wheel dynos actually measure POWER (force at drum*speed at drum) and calculate the torque out of it by measuring the rpm. If you don't have rpm data, you can still get the power-to-the-wheels curve, but no torque data.