Xnke

If it's in a U-pull yard, they aren't going to budge on price. Pull the valve cover and check for stuck valves before you buy...I just came back from the pull-a-part in nashville and found two perfectly good L28's, and one with a stuck valve and heavily dinged piston. In other words, I made a good haul today for not a lot of money...

That "low plateau" as Tony put it is what I meant by torque table. Looks like it's going rich right there and making good torque doing so, but as RPM's rise the mix settles down to the 13's and so the rich-torque bump settles back down. The port shows its small size right about 90km/hr there on the chart, with the curve laying over. That shows about where your port velocity is getting too high.

Risicard, The gauge I have is designed for measuring differential pressure or absolute vs. a fixed reference, and I wanted to know the DIFFERENTIAL pressure, not the absolute. It also only swings positive, it's not a center-zero gauge. I have made myself an absolute map over the hood on 4" grid squares, but for hood vents that's not the data I want...I want to know at what point on the hood is the DIFFERENCE between the top side and bottom side of the hood the greatest. When I was measuring in the open area at the front of the car, I was graphing absolute pressures, measuring in the wheel wells, measuring over the hatch area, I wanted to know the pressure relative to the cabin. For vents or for enhancing airflow through the coolers, I want differential pressure, so I can work out what produces the greatest flow potential.

As Tony Stated, You have a European model. It is NOT a USDM car, and won't come equipped as a USDM car. All your research on US market cars will lead you astray.

That's pretty much in the ideal location as far as pressure differential goes, too. I bet there is a LOAD of air moving through those vents at speed; have you done a yarn test?

I purchased a Dwyer Magnahelic gauge to measure differential pressure over the hood, and found that the highest difference was right about the middle of the S30 hood. This is measuring both top and bottom of the hood at the same time, on a differential measuring tool. About a 10" long section, from the side of the hood bulge out toward the outer frame of the hood, starting at the front corners of the bulge and coming back. This is where I measured the highest differential pressure, of 4.8 inches WC at 80MPH...too chicken to go faster on a public road. Fun part...the gauge showed low pressure on this spot of the hood from about 15MPH up!

About what RPM did that torque table peak up at...Since the X axis is in MPH it's a little odd to work from. Dyno Dynamics is a load-holding dyno too, at least the ones I've seen...similar to a Mustang.

The fender mirrors, when properly placed, are really superior to the door mirrors as far as blind spots go. I wish I had a set when I was painting my car; I'd have welded up the door mirror holes and gone with the fender mirrors. Both the Z and the 510 I've sat in with the fender mirrors, even with zero adjustment to fit me versus the much smaller guy in the dime and the woman in the Z, had ZERO areas that I could not see in the mirror.

The T5 will also make that noise when it has a synchro almost engaged, such as if the baulk ring is wedged into the selector hub. Then the hub rattles on the engagement teeth. I've never seen any other transmission do that, but I have seen two non-world-class T5's do it. The fabrication required to install the Z32 box involves sourcing an adaptor kit, having the bellhousing machined, a shifter bracket machined, the transmission mount modified to fit, and a new driveshaft. The WC conversion involves getting a FORD world-class T5, bolting the Nissan bellhousing to it, removing the Ford tailshaft housing, welding the Nissan tailshaft housing to get the extra meat in there when the tailshaft bushing is machined out in order to fit the larger WC tailshaft bushing, and reinstalling all of that PLUS A SHIFTER WITH POSITIVE SHIFT STOPS! Then it's down to changing the driveshaft front yoke, or getting a driveshaft made. A Chevy or Jeep T5 won't bolt up to the Nissan bellhousing.

The stock downpipe is cast ferrous alloy, yes...but it may weld nicely, it might not. All depends on your welder, your welder's machine, and the material. There was someone on this site selling these flanges pre-cut, but it wouldn't be hard for you to cut one out of plate, using the original gasket as the template.

Lash pad thickness is VERY dependant on your valve job, cylinder head thickness, ect. You can estimate it by taking the base circle of the cam you have, minus the new base circle, divided by two, and add that number to the lash pad thickness you have now. That will get you in the ballpark...but it isn't necessarily the size you need.

Sounds like the 0.450" lift, 222* duration at 0.050" I picked up the other day. Did he tell you the lobe center?

Can you look on the box the cam came in and get the grind number? the "272" grind sounds awful familiar...

Get T-boned in an older Z and don't expect to live. You might come out with some broken bones, but a direct door hit is pretty much the end. From most other angles you've got a decent amount of crumple-up metal...it's not a crumple zone as it wasn't designed to do that...but it tends to wrinkle up pretty good. A door-hit will push the rocker over, moving the whole seat up and over the transmission tunnel, IF modern cars had bumpers in the same place they were 40 years ago. Today, go park next to an SUV and notice that the bumper is right about shoulder height when you're sitting in the car.

The silvery ones I mentioned are VERY similar to the VERY expensive Remflex brand. They were only 12.99 when I bought them though, instead of 50+$ each now. The Ishino/Beck/Stone brands only had the flanges on the exhaust ports; I have seen ones like the felpro you show above but I have never had one in my hands.

Beck/Arnley, Stone, and a few other brands have those aluminum crush rings on the exhaust ports. I would look for the silvery kind, the compressed graphite gaskets as sold by Fel-pro so long ago. Now all I can get are the crappy cardboard type...they just don't seal up like the first few I bought.

That would be a KA flywheel...which can be had aftermarket machined either with an 80mm bore or an 81mm. The KA doesn't care because it centers up on the 36mm center bore...not the crank OD.

I bought these off a buddy for 50$, just so I can have some 17" wheels to run inexpensive, widely available tires on. I really don't care for the wheels much, but we'll do what we can do to make 'em look more to my taste. Ick. 5-spokes. Soooo...sand'em down. Silver didn't look great against the orange Z, I thought. Didn't look bad, but not great. I had two buddies helping out, that's Bacon's arm up there. Here's Ernie masking off. White and blue. Masked off, scuffed down to get under the hard top layer of powdercoat. Gave'em a shot of VHT Polyurethane Wheel Paint. It did not like the tape, so the edges came out pretty shitty. I'll have to get a modeling brush out and clean up the lines. Shop full of wheels. Anyone got any tips on cleaning up the masked-off areas? The paint tended to lift the tape, and then wanted to stick to it even if I tried to lift waaay early.

Stock Nissan valves in the turbo cars were already stainless. I am not sure that ALL the L-series valves were, however I can't get them to rust.

The ones that I have sat in felt really narrow to me; and the bolster was too high on my shoulder. The gap in the side bolster was too low for my arm to fit through when shifting, and the upper "wing" just got in the way. That said, I am 6'1" tall and 250lbs; with a 34" inseam and 38" waist.

I may be the sole dissenting opinion here, but I STILL get a grin seeing that Megasqurited 4-barrel setup. That thing looks KILLER, and if you could get one of the pickup truck round disk looking aircleaners to fit on it, in a Cedric that would be a hell of a sleeper-style setup. Not that it would look stock to those in the know...but to someone used to seeing a straight six in a sedan with a 1-bbl carb setup like that... Sorry, I've been studying front-engine dragsters with inline sixes in them. Back to port sizing... Looking at the port shape, I think that bringing the floor down in the middle of the arc, widening it out, and then leaving the chamber near the short side un-relieved, should tend to move air around the valve differently...perhaps splitting across the valve stem and flowing around the edges of the valve, tending to swirl into the chamber rather violently, but killing the tumble across the near side of the valve seat. I didn't spend any real time looking at this when I had the afternoon with the flow bench...but a little clay in the right spots showed some promise for my next project...the late-N47 with closed chambers... I think that proper shaping of the bowl and short turn, even without raising the port or increasing the diameter, will improve breathing a LOT. But, I also think that once the port shape is gotten to be "good", then a progression of larger-lift cams will show where the port starts to "die off", so to speak, due to the port diameter. Such that once the bowl and short turn has been addressed, progressively larger cams will show exactly where the port diameter becomes the restriction. Hopefully one day I'll have a good chance to do something like this...until then, we're on a forum thinking, plotting, noting.

That is all RB crankshafts...

Gets me wondering; I've seen Tony Knight's oil pans for the L-series incorporate rod end scrapers into the oil pan rail, is this commonly done? It doesn't look like a full scraper, but rather just catches what is coming off the end of the connecting rods as they come around. I am fixing to make a nice, thick-rail oil pan out of an old college project. (10mm thick oil pan rails...used to be a crank girdle for the L28)

According to Parker, who has made them for decades, the JIC standard was first, although it wasn't called JIC at the time. AN fittings were modified from the original 37* hydraulic single-flare standard to withstand heavy vibration without the fatigue strength deterioration when made in aluminum. The fittings made from steel and other alloys didn't show this problem...but since the modified threadform to allow aluminum to hold up in this service also provided increases strength in the other materials, the AN standard doesn't specify that they don't have to use the modified thread. It DOES specify that AN fittings are to be made from very specific alloys of aluminum and very specific thread forms and classes of fits. I am reading the spec now...and an AN fittings MUST be made from 7075 or 7071 series aluminum, as of the 1987 update to MS33656-J. Currently, AN fittings are defined by SAE-AS4395. I don't have a copy of that standard handy at the moment. There is a reason AN fittings are universally used in hot rodding...but it isn't for strength or suitability...It's because after WWII, they were dirt cheap and EVERYONE used them. Now, they're the standard that "everyone's used forever, so we (racing organizations) might as well require them now!"

Sure, but the reason AN fittings are different is the material. There would not have been a need to modify the root of the thread form if it want for aluminum's propensity for fatigue stress cracking at stress risers like threads. If the root reason was because the JIC thread form and tolerances were just not good enough...then the JIC standard would probably just have been superceded.