Heavy Z

Ok, here's some DD2000 numbers to ponder, both engines have the same XE268H cam, RPM heads, carb, manifold, both at 399 horsepower: RPMs HP 327/383 TQ 327/383 2000 115/141 303/371 2500 153/186 321/390 3000 195/233 341/408 3500 243/285 365/427 4000 291/332 382/435 4500 336/372 392/434 5000 373/399 391/418 5500 391/398 373/380 6000 399/384 350/336

Just as we see here, in 1903 some people thought fair labor standards in this country were impossible, thay'd say "business owners are too powerful and they control the government too, there's no way things are going to change!" In this case, things did change thanks to middle-class people who were upset at the power of the rich and afraid of revolution from the poor. They stood up collectively and took back this country, instituting regulations on child labor, safety, fair wages and hours, etc. A president named Theodore Roosevelt, a republican, fought against the pro-business side of his party and along with other progressive republicans and democrats, were able to change our system for the better. Nothing more American than the power of the people. Sparky is being realistic, business would certainly fight hard to stop any changes these days. They have learned a few lessons over the years and now with the price of elections we will probably never see another president who isn't either a rich man or had to shake hands with a lot of special interests on the way up. So, in that sense he makes a good point that it's unlikely to change. The middle-class would once again need to become concerned enough to do something, back 100 years ago they got interested from reading articles from magazines like McClure's which spotlighted society's problems. Today we have the internet, but 90% of the people just load up on what TV has to offer, and if you look who owns the networks you'll see it's the same people who have no interest in fixing things. This makes it hard to get people interested, when they are kept busy by the likes of O.J., Condit, Peterson, etc. The truth is that with a president and the people behind such a concept it wouldn't be difficult for the USA to institute regulations. This isn't communism or socialism, no change in how we govern ourselves, just an agreement with the world that if you are going to sell your goods in the U.S. then standards must be met. We are the biggest market in the world, countries would be forced to comply or lose out big on profits. CEO's will try to scare you into thinking prices would skyrocket, when they are the ones who have seen gigantic jumps in pay in the last 15 years. Wage increases would not impact the price of goods as much as some of you think, and now that workers have more money, do you know what they do with it? They spend it on all sorts of stuff - our products hopefully. Good for the global economy all the way around, aside from that some CEO's wouldn't get their $100 million bonus in addition to their $150 million salary.

I couldn't agree with you more Dave. Think global, end prejudice, and to go farther - make fair labor standards for all countries. One reason that we can't compete is because some countries could care less about employee safety or rights, and unfortunately those are "hotspots" where business can be most profitable. Regulate them more and we could better compete in an atmosphere where workers don't have to work under the lash to allow cheap stuff for us. The same "company town" tactics we look down upon in our own history are allowed to flourish elsewhere. We fought hard to end it here, and now by allowing other countries to work this angle leaves us not on a level playing field. Actually it's not other countries, these are American companies just "over there" often times, competing against our jobs. Take Nike for example. They pay dirt wages due to economic circumstance in Vietnam. They build a shoe for $3. We don't get it for $10,11,12, even $20 would be a great profit. They could pay their workers a living wage for next to no loss in profit, but why do so if there aren't any rules? No, they take the money and spend so much on advertising as to ram the swish down our throats. That money is good for the economy, but the price tag is still $150. So much for passing the savings on to the consumer...

Sparky has made a great case for why the trade pendelum shouldn't swing too far on this one as there are benefits to buying certain products elsewhere. What I think the original post was trying to say was that we've moved too far in the other direction, not that trade is bad all together. With our current trade deficit, $1.5 billion a day is sucked out of this country in foreign trade. America became very powerful after WW2 because we were the industrial powerhouse of the world. By the early 50's, at 6% of the world's population we produced 50% of the world's goods. Had we protected our patents, America could be the only country producing a vast array of high-tech goodies, and the world would be paying us hand-over fist for things like TV's, VCR's, computers, camcorders, etc. Instead, we now prefer to have others build it really cheap. Sparky did a fine job explaining some of the dangers of going too far one way, let's look at what aggressively going the other way has created: What we get aside from lower prices are a lot of people now standing around without jobs. Some have been absorbed into the new "service economy," some have not. Going to college may not help much either. A recent trend has white-collar jobs going too. Why pay an accountant in the states when you can hire a number-cruncher in the Philippines? Or a computer programmer in China or I.T. in India? The list goes on, at $5,000 a year instead of the $50,000 you paid the guy back in the states. Efficiency looks great on paper and the stock price jumps, shareholders party down. But now you have more Americans standing around, not paying taxes(lately 50,000-100,000 more unemployed each month). The gov needs all that employee income tax to run things, so to plug the holes they can (and do) just borrow it back from those countries who we pay for all our goodies, namely China and Japan. How much did we borrow this year? The figures released earlier in the week said $730-740 billion. How much is that? Well, let's see...if you went into business the day Jesus was born, and lost $1 million a day, every day, it would've taken you until 3 years ago to finally lose $730 billion dollars. Thazalotta clams!!! P.S. To give credit where credit is due, we are still the undisputed champs in one manufacturing sector - war. We are the largest by a long shot, supplying 50% of the total weapons sold worldwide each year.

Comp Cams sells locking nuts that will work perfect for you, others make them too. Summit, Jegs, or a good local speedshop should have them.

In both engines it's one revolution of the crankshaft either way you go. Both have to go through the push-pull motion, one is just janking and throwing pistons more than the other. Sure the 383 pistons take more abuse, but in doing so more torque is created. More torque pushing on the gears makes for faster acceleration, redline will be reached quicker, you'll have to shift faster, and thus is "fast-revving." Gearing can change this, unfortunately with my Z I have no room. My 5th is .73 and would turn too many rpms on the highway to gear down and cam up(also a streetability issue). Call me crazy, but his route seems less practical. I used to think otherwise but Grumpyvette's logic has me convinced that when considering a light vehicle 'quick-revving' has more to do with displacement than stroke. Good question about the olds engine, maybe someone will have an answer.

This would be a fun car: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2437848147&category=6472#ebayphotohosting [/url]

Hybrid Zr's should appreciate this car, Italian design with a Ford 351 engine. They are even nicer in person.

I'm glad someone here grabbed it up so we can hear how things work out. Hopefully it'll streamline the V8 process with your 280ZX, plus some uniqueness points for a V8Z that's 'all Datsun.'

This might be it, check it out: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33615&item=2437059640

Point well taken, thanks John & Speed for the expository info on the subject. I know you guys don't like the 'all things equal' idea as it's usually hypothetical, that I can understand for sure. Anyone specifically building around a car will make different choices in how things are done. In my case, both engines already have the same cam, so my plan is to strip the 327 of everything it's got and just change the blocks. Cheap and relatively easy. I posted because I didn't want people to get the wrong idea about short-stroke motors based on terminology, as I currently have a nice one and know how it feels. It revs very quickly now and doesn't mind going big, but I'm also pretty sure that under these conditions with the 383 my Z will be an even 'faster-revver.'

Exactly my point, David. Some people misunderstand and think the motor actually revs faster. As Sleeper Z pointed out, this is a myth and so I figured I'd mention it out as we've had a few posts lately dealing with this topic. Using terms like 'fast revving' when you really mean 'high revving' is bound to confuse a few along the way. Anyone who speaks english (but has limited engine knowledge) would be easily fooled by this play on words. My point is that if we recognize this play on words for what it is, then we'll be less likely to confuse people into thinking that a short-stroke engine is going to be "fast revving."

I'll support your argument even if you don't go through with the medical procedures. That said, you could do one or the other, I'd recommend both. That way you can tell people you didn't leave anything untried.

One drawback to using long rods was brought up by a sprint car racer/mechanic friend of mine. He says that the shorter pistons needed to use long rods have a tendency to 'wobble' more because the rings are closer together. He says that yes the long rod idea is good for power, just not to expect the piston rings to make it to 150,000 miles. I thought some of you may find this interesting.

Yes I like my 327(that i can hold it at at 5000+ and not sweat it), but I have a 383 in my truck that would run circles around it. I ran two identical engines aside from stroke through DD2000 and came up with my figures. I wanted to keep it simple. If the race was from 5000 rpms to 6000 rpms, then maybe the 327 would have a chance(as rebel 450 pointed out), under street conditions however I stand by my conclusion that a 383 will wind up quicker.

For anyone out there who thinks that a 302/327 will wind up faster than a 350/383, read on. The short answer is that they don't. In fact, it's quite the reverse. Let's take 2 engines identical in every regard (cam, heads, etc) except that one is a 327 and the other is a 383. The 383 will make around 70 more torque at 2500 and by 5000 it still makes 30 more torque. In two cars going down the road, at exactly the same rpm(lets say 2500), if both drivers step on it then that 383 will rev 'faster' because it has more torque and will accelerate to redline quicker than a 327, which makes less torque and thus takes more time to wind up to redline. To say 'fast revving' is wrong about a short-stroke engine. What they do have is 'rev potential,' meaning they can safely rev beyond a stroker motor. If you want 'fast-revving,' then a stroker is the way to go. Just my .02 cents.

Yeah buddy! You go ahead and post pics anytime you feel like it. That's one mean lookin' Z you've got.

The good stuff of Reaganomics, let's have a look: 1. Collapse of USSR - Now rather than a single strong government keeping all those nasty weapons under lock and key, you have a situation so desperate that nukes have been sold to who knows who, bio-agents are easily obtainable, and local military officials still have their fingers on the button(do you know where those nukes are still pointed?). Russia is a mess, we could've taken their advice and hired their scientists for pennies on the dollar, but after spending so much to topple the USSR we preferred to gloat over our victory. Some of these scientists are now employed in countries hostile to us. Also, the middle east was a strong ally of ours during that period, rather than the situation we now find ourselves in. A lot of people in the know would question your presumption that we are any safer now, if a nuke goes off in America it's still highly likely that it'd be stamped "made in the USSR." 2. Largest peacetime expansion of any economy ever - I should hope so with all that spending. On a smaller level, I could get a bunch of credit cards and charge my way into what would look to be prosperity - new car, furniture, vacations, etc. Also, some of that prosperity is obviously due to increased defence contracts - the same as using my charge card to make my wages seem higher. 3. GDP growth per worker increased from .8% to 1.8% - Hooray! 4. Productivity in manufacturing increased 3.8% per year - Productivity is on the rise even in today's stalled economy, all this means is that businesses found a way to be more profitable(i.e. reduce # of employees, outsource to 3rd world countries, etc.). This mostly helps out stock prices. 5. Unemployment declined from 7% to 5.4% - Good, although as your second article points out this was partially from defence spending. 6. Inflation dropped from 10% to 4.2% - Always helpful. Sure it wasn't all bad, but I cannot emphasize enough the consequences of runaway spending. You ask, was it worth it? Well, in addition to paying over a billion a day in interest(which is money we pay and get zero in return for), we must borrow $1.5 billion every day to keep the U.S. afloat. These loans mostly come from Asia and are secured by using federal land as collateral. Do you like the idea that foreign countries hold the pink slip for much of our natural resources? Do you like the idea that foreign countries could bring us to our knees if they cut off our credit? As the dollar slides lower, we will pay even more in intrest for these loans. Think of it as a guy who doesn't make enough to cover all his debt, so must forever borrow to keep his standard of living. This is where higher taxes come in. If you are a republican, the idea of paying higher taxes should repulse you. Know that Reagan lit the fuse that'll ultimately demand higher taxes from us all, and in many ways Clinton didn't curb spending much either, but he did get the budget balanced.

Check over what the second article you posted says: "Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of his second term. First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the federal deficit in Reagan's last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP. Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988. " This article questions your support - it indicates that the GDP to debt ratio increased(worsened) rather than improved. BTW I agree with some of the trade barrier ideas, they can help keep jobs in the states if managed correctly. And from the first article: "Ronald Reagan left us a national debt of about $3.5 trillion or $3,500 billion. The national debt when Ronald Reagan took office was about $1 trillion. That included in it all the debt run up for the Revolutionary war, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and all the Social wars of the 1930's and subsequent years. In other words it took the United States from 1776 until 1980 or more than 200 years to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion.It took Reaganomics only 8 years to increase the national debt from $1 trillion to about $3.5 trillion! Given the spending habits established by the legacy of Ronald Reagan the national debt is now about $5.5 trillion! The interest cost on the national debt now run about $250 million a year! When RR took office they were about $53 million a year." This was written back in '98, and the yearly interest figure is incorrect. In 1998 we paid $363,823,722,920.26 in interest charges. Thanks for both articles, they helped to make my point.

In 1980, we were the world's largest creditor, by 1988 we were the world's largest debtor. Today we spend $1 billion a day just to pay the interest on the debt. That is nearly our defense budget just on interest. Taxes could be lower on all of us were this not such a drag on the system. This leads to your next point about raiding social security. When funds are tight, the people are taxed out, and the U.S. can only borrow so much by law, then a popular place to go for both parties has been to borrow money from all those social security dollars that we pay in each month. They write an i.o.u. and then it's off to the races. None has been repaid so far, maybe the next generation will pick up the tab...oh I forgot, they'll be busy with revenue shortages as baby boomers retire. Do we dare spend less?

This Couldn't be truer!!! More and more, America is unique among the developed world in that we place more value on showmanship than credentials. Give it to us quick and flashy, no time or patience these days to read the fine print. Most aren't interested in doing the legwork that goes with being informed, but they surely love their "opinions." Reagan is one of those guys, remembered with esteem and grace. The good days. What do I remember of this man? Do I remember the deal he secretly worked with the Iranians before he was officially president, selling them weapons in exchange so they'd release our hostages - you guessed it - the moment he was being sworn in? I don't, but I do remember him looking really courageous later on when he proclaimed "I don't negotiate with terrorists." Do I remember that he started a war in El Salvador by creating a resistance movement from thin air, secretly funded with that Iranian arms cash because he didn't want to bother going through the proper channels (i.e. congress and the people) for approval? Nope, I do remember though that those Iran-Contra hearings were really boring. Do I remember that the U.S. debt was $1.2 trillion when Carter left office(an accumulation of many years and presidents), and that in 12 years he and Bush senior were able to quadruple that amount? No, but he did re-commission some cool battleships despite what those tax 'n spend liberals had to say about it. He was a good looking actor and will be remembered fondly. Will we look back in 20 years and remember Arnold the same way?

That would be great for the kid that already knows his way around legos and erector sets. What a great way to teach someone what's going on in there.

Oh yeah, despite the state of things I want to point out that this country is still a wonderful place to live, and is why I want to see us better off and not a 'remember when' society. There surely is so much good that we sometimes overlook and should be proud of.

Good points, guys. I in no way disagree. The system is silly at this point. If you're a poor American, you'll be denied health care. The way around this is to go to Mexico, become a citizen, and then sneak back over the border to get all the healthcare you need free, thanks to us. Our medical system if laughable right now, just look north to Canada. They ensure everyone and yet somehow we still manage to pay TWICE what Canada pays per capita for health care. I know their system is flawed, but if Canada had twice the cash per patient those problems would go away very quickly. There is too much profit built into our system, mostly administrative costs that are grossly out of proportion. How else is it that we, the richest country in the world, is the only developed country without universal health care and is dead last in infant mortality among the top 20 countries?

The same could be said for the multitude of companies that moved nothing more than their address offshore last year, denying the U.S. of $70 billion in tax revenues. Regardless of where you are on immigration, I feel we are missing the boat here. Poverty in Mexico (as with anywhere) causes some people to take risks to find work here. They are not to blame. Who IS to blame are the AMERICANS who employ them. If we were a people of principles, California businesses would refuse to hire illegals. Do they do that? No. In fact, illegal immigration is often encouraged by growers because they work hard and can PAY THEM UNDER THE TABLE (now who's adding to our tax problems?). This allows growers, contractors, and businessmen to pay less for labor, be more competitive, and with the money they save they can buy that 2nd home in Aspen, CO. I've heard their arguments many times, they don't hire Americans because they don't work as hard. Who is winning big from illegal immigration? Not the illegals who come over and work for dirt wages, but ultimately the people who employ them are the real winners here. And we, in turn, have to pay for support services like medical coverage, border security, etc because illegals know that Americans will hire them to save a buck. I reiterate, WE pay this as taxpayers, those who pay illegals under the table are in no way contributing their fair share. Be careful what you wish for folks, if all the illegals left now we'd be in big trouble. Just for the sake of speculation, if we mobilized the military and kicked all the illegals out of California, do you know what would happen? The prduce in our stores would dry up, restaurants would have to close, construction projects would come to a halt, lawns around the state would go untended, and a statewide depresion would probably ensue. We would be wide-eyed and in the streets asking "what happened?" I don't think some of you relize how integrated into the economy that illegal immigration really is. They don't come and take our doctoring jobs and lawyering jobs, but in many ways keep California afloat doing jobs that most people won't do and at a price that businesses can't help but love. The only way to stop immigration is to cut it off at the source - and no, I don't mean the border. If there were no jobs for them, they wouldn't bother coming. So I ask, who's to blame for that?