Six_Shooter

Yep that helps a whole lit more. Looks much better than the magnet based deals.

I drove through that on Saturday evening and Sunday, coming back from looking at a 240 in Richland, actually stayed in Spokane for the night. Was very nice looking in the mountains up by Cours De'laine (Sorry if that's spelled wrong), with the snow over all the trees. A couple tractor trailers were a bit sideways and many vehciles either in the ditch or abandonded on teh side of the road on our way back to Calgary. Back in Canada it wasn't any better, in fact the snow may have been worse, driving sure was since the roads were most two lane roads. I flew into Hamilton (Ontario) last night at 12:30 and it was raining. There's hardly any snow here.

I found on my truck, that was a turbo V6, it was quieter without a muffler than with. I was using a Supertrapp at the time, and prefered it with cat, no muffler. The cat probably helped reduce the noise output as well. I know that doesn't really help with your picture request, but thought I'd give you another avenue to consider.

I figured that much out already. I guess I should have been more specific what IS a "Paint meter?" How does it function? It sounds like it is some sort of tool, but have not heard of such a thing.

They actually don't "squat". Squat is bad, as it lifts the weight OFF the rear wheels and that's when traction is lost. A proper rear suspension actually plants th erear wheels, forcing them down to the ground, or "lifts" the rear of the vehicle. The reason that the body does in higher power vehciles lower over the rear wheels is because of the massive torque, where the drive shaft or pinion gear more specifically "climbs" the ring gear, which in turn lifts the front wheels. 4 linked or ladder bar cars usually have an easier time of doing this, because they are designed with rear wheel traction in a straight line being the largest reason for installing these rear suspension designs, and are tuned for that. IRC cars can plantthe rear end as we have seen, but can be in some cases more of a chalange.

What's is this "paint meter"?

I disagree with the mating to a different tranny lowering the engine, at least by any significant amount. I'd have to look for the pics but when I was researching a mid engine RWD project that I was going to build, I was looking at using the Scooby tranny, as the output shafts were just behind the bellhousing, allowing me to almost fit the engine in a longitudal position behind the (front) seats of what was then the project Sunbird. The input shaft was no higher than that of a traditional RWD tranny, or at least not enough to worry about, since even RWD trannies will differ in where thier hight can be in relation to the input shaft CL. Some hang thier weight below this CL some place it more beside. In most stock applications though, like the T5 for example, most of the guts are hung below this center line. Even the FWD transaxles I've used hang most of the guts below the input shaft centerline, and usually have the bottom of the tranny about the same hight as the bottom of the oil pan. Most RWD trannies I've used seem to hang the tranny lower than the oil pan, quite a bit of that is due to trying to keep the interior floorpan low for interior space reasons, and for the front of the oil pan to clear the crossmembers and steering. Basically it comes down to the crank centerline being about the same location no matter what engine is used, due to driveline angles. There are ways to move this, but if it's not done right, this can put severe stress on the driveline and the first thing to go usually is the universal joints, between the tranny and the diff. Rectifying this in an IRS car is even more complicated, because just lowering the diff, then takes the stress off the tranny to diff U-joints, but then places them on the axle U-joints (or CVs as the case may be), due to the axle and the lower control arm now acting around two different arcs. So then lowering the inboard LCA points would seem like a solution, but then ruins the camber gain under compression. I also don't see being able to lower the Scooby engine, due to the crossmember being in the way, unless it really is short enough to be completly behind the crossmember. I know I measured one of these engines a while ago, as I was going to buy a Forester and swap a V6 into it (It had the common head gasket problem, and was on it's 4th driver side head gasket), and although the engine itself wasn't much shorter than the V6 I wanted to swap in, there wasn't enough space make it fit nicely behind the grill and have cooling, etc, so I didn't buy the car. If it would fit behind the crossmember it would look kinda neat like that, and could then maybe set up a cantilever suspension system to look even more trick, and use up some of that space. Just also consider that you can place the engine too far rearward and make the car handle poorly. By taking too much weight off the front wheels, the car will want to push more through the corner, than it would with more weight over the front axle. You would then have to weight transfer using the brakes instead of simply letting off the loud pedal, which will in the end make for slower lap times. Some of you expressed concern with hanging the weight of the engine in front of the front axle, when's the last time you heard of a poorly handling Scooby? The fact that the front wheels are powered will help pull the car through the corner, besides that engine by the looks of it is quite light, and from what I remember the engine length isn't that far forward. Just look at a Scooby, there isn't much sheet metal forwad of the front wheels, though possibly more than an S30, I really think that could be doable, and make for a very unique swap. I would consider it myself, if the races that I want to enter would allow front frame rail (and major suspension) modifications, so I am limited there. A FWD front suspension set-up or maybe even the Scooby front suspension set-up could be used for the conversion. You can even move the engine and transaxle back slightly from having the axles exactly inline with the front axle centerline, though this does put a little more stress on the CVs, it gets worse the more being off line you go. BTW, it seems that there are a few people that think I'm raging on this swap or somehow saying that it's a bad idea, please don't read any more into what I write than what is there, I am only pointing out other aspects of this, or for that matter, any swap. I think it would be a good swap, I just think that maybe some of the reasons are for the wrong reasons. I've seen far too many people start stuff like this to realize that there really is no benefit over taking an easier path, or that the "problem" they were trying to "fix" was made worse. I've been around cars long enough to have seen this re-occur more often than you might believe.

The CFSC is a great event. It was started and ran by a friend of mine, Chris Biro. I haven't seen that car there, but I also haven't been every year either. 8 second and even 7 second street cars are not un-common at the CFSC or the J&P Shootout (Now called something else that I don't recall). Once you get to that level though most of the cars would be closer to being race cars with plates than true street cars. There are still a few true full interior street cars though, that can run 8s.

I have a 1985 GMC Jimmy that I am working on currently, see sig for older build details, new details will be along soon enough. I have also swapped a V6 and 5 speed into my 1985 Buick Skyhawk, they were only ever offered as 4cyl and automatics. Helped with and performed a few swaps of newer 60 degree V6s from GM into older (1st and 2nd gen) J-bodies. What else would I like to do? GM 60 degree V6 with a couple turbos into a late '80s to early '90s Lotus Esprit. Those old Celicas look pretty sweet and could think of a few potential swaps for them.

I'm not missing the point. I've been around racing for many years, and seen people try to use the negitive side for this purpose and cause problems. Putting a switch on the negitive side of the battery is a poor "repair" for a battery that is not bolted down well, and/or has inadequate terminal protection. I work with automotive electrical daily, and know this is not a difficult thing to fix properly. Most racing bodies I have seen require the vehcile to shut off, when the switch is also turned off, and as I stated, this can be possible to do by switching the negitive side of the battery, it is much more difficult than using the positive side. The cable between the positive terminal on the battery and the master cut off switch should be as short as possible. Also the same "problem" that suggest applies to even the negitive cable, it can make a curcuit in teh very same way as a shorted positive cable, whihc can actually be looked at as "shorting" as well, though all it will be doing in the case of a negitive ground vehcile is completling the circuit and making the master cut off switch pointless.

In most cases, there is no noticible difference in using longer piping, especially when it's only by a few feet. Any noticed difference will come from the intake tract being too restrictive to start with.

You could always buy stickier tires, like the Hoosier Quicktimes, Mickey Thompson Drag Radials, BFG Drag Radials, etc, that fit your current rims. MT has a few different flavours to choose from as well.

Tony D, you are missing a lot of the basics of how an automotive electrical system works. You can completly remove the battery from a running vehicle disconnecting the negitive first if you like, and it will continue to run on, I have done this several times, out of need to move cars around with an improperly sized battery or none at all and boosted it from another vehcile, I do not however recommend doing this as it can ruin electrical components, due to there being no filter to remove the AC ripple that is present in the charge lead from an automotive alternator. Many sanctioned racing bodies specify the master kill switch must be on the positive side, NHRA, IHRA being a couple, although I haven't looked myself, but I believe NDRA, NMRA are also like this. It's MUCH easier to have a car shut off, by switching the positive side of the elctrical system, since it's much easier to cut the charge lead from the alternator than it is to interrupt the ground path of the alternator. It can be done as simply as running the charge lead from the alternator to the battery side of the master kill switch. Better option is to use a 4 pole master disconnect to also shut off the charge lead and have no positive potential on that charge lead back to the alternator. If you were to run the ground from the engine block to the battery through the switch, you still have the potential that a gorund path may be present, through sensors, the tranny, to the drive shaft, to the Diff, etc. In a negitive ground car it's much easier and more finite to switch the positive, there's just far too much potential for the ground path to not be interupted.

From the prices I've seen an uncracked dash seems to go for over $500 on a regular basis, but the two cracks even though they may be minor, will reduce the value quite a bit.

It wouldn't have taken me 6 months to be single, closer to 6 seconds. I would have no problem dropping anyone no matter how much I loved them or thought I did, if they told me that my hobby was only going to be temporary, and that once we were married she was going to make the decisions. That's like cutting off an arm or covering my mouth so that i couldn't eat or breath.

I've lost a few GFs over my car addiction, and it's been for the better. No seriously. The girl I'm with now, understands my car addiction, she even supports it, whol heartedly. She is helping me with getting my S30, and bringing it home. I was showing her some rims last week and she said "How much do we have to save". She owns a house with a garage, and the garage is 90% mine, she needs just a little for her gardening stuff, but that will change with any luck to the shed that is hardly used. Shhhhhh.... don't tell her that I said that though. The way she looks at it, is that I have a hobby, that is creative, and enjoyable with a planned (ok not always) outcome. She looks at this as something much better than doing drugs or being an alcoholic, it's also something that we can do together, and she does want to learn. I'm also not always in the garage either, in fact we usually spend at least time for dinner together after I get home from work, and as independant as she is, that is usually enough time for her, to keep her happy as well.

How does none of it make sense, all of it does, when you sit back and think about actually fitting a boxer engine where it was never intended to go. I realize the weight balance would be upset, I also mentioned that the rad would not be able to be re-installed in the factory loaction, and suggested that may it be installed over the transmission, an idea taken from desert trucks that place the rad in teh back of the vehcile, though that is more for protections and weight distrobution, to get more weight over the rear wheels that when they are airbourne, that they come down rear wheels first. I have also said that the frame rail could be placed under the heads, or as would probably be used a combination of both (above and below). A frame rail that is placed over though can very easily be made strong, with proper planning, and triagulation from other bracing. Also realizing that the frame rail in front of the front axle center line, doesn't really need to be any stronger than enough to support the engine weight (and power transfer into the chassis). I just don't understand why one would want to use this engine (subie) for any other reason than to use it in an AWD application, due to it's short length. It has been shown that V8s will provide excellant weight distrobution, and wouldn't be surprised if the change in CG is so little (if any) that it makes no difference on the track, comparing a V8 equipped (If you want to compare somthing a little closer use a V6) and a boxer engine equipped S30. Most V8s that I see swapped into S30s are also almost completly behind the center line of the front axle, with usually only the water pump and other belt driven accessories being forward of that axle CL, which results in a better weight distrobution than what the Datsun factory provided with the I6.

Nope.

I just think that the only reason to use a Subie engine would be because of how short it is, from crank pully to flywheel, to be able to devise an AWD set-up. I can't see the CG being changed enough, to warrant using a boxer type engine in a conventional front engine RWD set-up. At least that's the only reason I would use a boxer engine, to use AWD. Once you look at the fact that there's still a lot of parts that are at conventional hight in comparison to a typical V or inline engine, especially when using a turbo set-up, where the turbo is mounted above the engine. to keep the weight behind the front axle, for the benifits that are being mentioned. To move the turbo forward of the engine would still hang it in front of the front axle, moving the weight forward upsetting the balance of the chassis, and taking away soemwhat from the overall goal. Also the chassis/fram modifications needed to fit the width of the Subie engine would be better placed forward of the axle IMO, so as to not have to brace the hell out of everything, that also adds a lot of weight that will be mostly above the centerline of the engine (to keep good ground clearance), also negating most effects of a lowered CG.

While I was looking at my 240Z (to be) on Saturday, the underhood sticker (still there ), said to test at 2780 lbs (27?? anyway) for emmisions load testing, I would assume that would be with two average weight occupants, at 180lbs each, that would be closer to 2500 lbs curb weight, and EVERY bit of information also suggests this for the early S30, the later versions the 260, and 280 getting upwards of 2800 lbs. Absolutly stripped down I could see leass than 2000 lbs, as many tube frame race cars can get this light, but even then, that's pretty light. Most tube frame roadster nastalgiac cars seem to be about 1800 lbs, that's no glass, firbreglass bodies, etc.

With enough cutting and welding anything will work. Sorry I don't know for sure if the IC will directly work in an S30, but I do know that most people are pretty happy using them on applications upwards of about 400 HP.

I will, I have a bit of work to do on it, to get it road worthy, but I will be driving it this year, pretty much in the form it sits now. I'll probably wait until late spring or early summer to convert the tranny to stick (I'm getting a 5-speed with the car), as it's currently automatic, which it goes right into gear, both D and R. so it works very well as it is, but I just gotta row my own. I hope to be driving it by about March or or so, or when ever the salt is gone. I'll get a hold of you closer to when the car is ready. I can't wait to get it.

Yeah, I'm just going on what people have said in this thread for dimensions. I only saw my S30 for the first time on Saturday, and is still 500 miles away from where I am now. I'll have to wait until it's shipped to my house (another 2000 miles). I thought the idea of using the Subie engine would be to use the AWD as well, seems pointless without.

Yes, HP is a calculation of torque over time, but there are couple ways to gain more HP, which you have eluded to. You can take a low torque engine and theortically continually rev it higher and higher, and as long as the torque outputs stays linear, HP output increases. The other way is to increase the torque output, and becaue HP is simply a calulation, this autmatically increases HP, at lower RPM. Also most bike engines that I see have very low torque output, but rev like ll get out, to get the HP numbers. Bikes are very light, in comparison to even the S30, most superbikes are in the 400 to 500 lbs range, and that can even be considered heavy, especially when compared to a race prepped bike that seem to come in at between 300 and 400 lbs (sans rider of course, since there's too much of a variable there, and can quickly become a 50% weight increase of race weight, compared to much less percentage of a driver's weight effect on a car). An (early) S30 weighs just shy of 2500 lbs from what I have read, which is 5 times the weight of many bikes, that puts a hell of a lot of strain on the engine, when asking it to pull that much more, even using two, you are still asking it to move 2 and a half times the weight on each engine. I can only see this ending in disapointment, unless all you want is a high speed, WOT machine, like a Bonneville record chaser. I can't see this working well for any other application, even something like the Silver state run, which is mostly just high speed, but there are still corners that have to be slowed down for, and accelerated from. The low torque output engines seem to lack any of that quick get up and go that is need for these type of acceleration times. A high reving, low torque engine could be used, but would not accelerate very well, from a standing start, or even low speed, as that is where high torque production is desired, and where many bike engines seem to faulter, again, because they are designed to pull light machines. Yes, gearing can change the wheel torque, but all it can do is multiply the existing torque. I guess the only saving grace here is that you can use such a steep final gear that you can stay with in teh power band of some of these higher reving Super bike engines, turning 14000+ RPM. I would just rather start with something that makes more torque to begin with as it's that much easier to get the HP out of it, take a high torque producing engine and build it to rev like a bike engine, yeeee haaaaw. There are big block V8s that rev into the 5 digit RPMs, takes some effort, but is getting to be more commonplace, especially inthe drag racing world. I have heard of some Bonneville car builders trying similar ideas and being succesful with it, getting more RPM, with high torque means that the car will be able to accelerate to a higher speed, than a car with an engine that produces less torque. Also many of the components are very light weight, and may not stand up to the abuse of trying to move that much more weight. Don't get me wrong, I like smaller engines, in fact I'll be attempting to use a 3.5L V6 in my S30, that is generally considered to be of "less than desirable design", but very few people have actually tapped the potential of the engine, and have many people suggesting that I just start with an LSx, but I don't want to be just another "me too". This is an interesting idea, I just believe that the outcome will be less than desirable results.

Like I said in the first post, not much at all, for rust. The rust on the top of the 1/4s is just surface and is still very solid, the rust on the dogleg is also surface rust, but I will be replacing that anyway, due to being dented, and the two rust holes are both very small, one is in teh valence which I will probably just repair, as opposed to finding a new one, and a small hole in the passenger floor.