Tony D

" Again, I'm so glad the BRZ is making such a splash and I hope they sell like hotcakes. " IMO that is just another marketing branch for Subaru! (er...) Subaru is a small niche maker. Rather than build more infrastructure for selling, they are peddling their wares to a mass-market manufacturer with their niche-market production economics. Subaru is in hog heaven making more WRX's (er, BRZ's...) now than they ever IMAGINED at the outset. There were people at Subaru USA that thought the WRX was a BAD IDEA because 'small powerful car' is just nothing that their market asked for.... Uh.... Not every pointy bearded suit with leather patches driver wants a WRX.... But there were PLENTY of other non-subaru owners champing at the bit to own one! I remember when the WRX came out, I literally had the sales man screaming like a little girl and clutching the 'jesus handle' on my test drive with my wife and kid in the back seat (kid yelling 'Faster Daddy, Faster like at MSA!' ) Their marketing was totally wrong, reminiscent of Commodore Business Machines if they took over KFC and started the new "Warm Dead Bird" campaign... The sales force had NO idea what they had... but QUICKLY adapted and EMBRACED the performance niche! If only Nissan was so concerned about it's enthusiast customers and less so concerned about Brie and Wine these days celebrating their resurrection. They THREW AWAY A MARKET THEY BASICALLY CREATED, and have NEVER made a SERIOUS ATTEMPT to get it back! I mean SERIOUSLY... there was a point in time when in the halls of HQ in Gardena, NNA Executives considered SUING Z-CAR CLUBS because they were 'infringing on a trademark of NNA'.... How far did we stray from the target gentlemen? How sad a commentary that someone like that exists in an executive capacity at a so-called CAR company! FOR SHAME!

"As to why the pilots need to be 1 or 1.5 turns out, nobody really told me the reasoning why, but I think it has to do with the adjuster screw getting far enough away from the pilot that it's essentially wide open, so that more adjusting isn't really doing anything." It's the linear taper of the adjusting screw compared with the size of the hole it's going into. (Please forgive me if this sounds a bit geekish...but here goes:) The pilot jet feeds both the idle screw, and the transition ports. Your fuel supplied by the idle port (throttles near closed and no transition ports exposed to vacuum) is the area supplied by the annular area difference between the volume the screw takes up compared to the size of the hole. You ONLY want enough passing through that annular area enough volume to allow the combined area of all transition ports to be less than the annular area of the pilot jet you install for the vacuum you apply. (Same as the SU Jet Fueling Characteristic when calculating 'station position' at each step in the taper.) Meaning, if you pull more out than 1-1.5 turns, you have as Jon said, 'basically opened the hole fully" and aren't going to be able to supply transition ports with proper fueling. Back it out two or three turns compare the thread pitch, and you can see where you are on your needle taper compared to only 1 turn out. BASICALLY what this means is at one turn out, and a BIG JET, you have very little annular space in which to supply fuel, and you therefore allow FAR MORE FUEL to be added during TRANSITION AND OFF IDLE than at idle. This allows you great flexibility in tuning idle mixture, and gives you far less chance of transitional or tip-in bog from enleanment when opening the throttles off idle and before main transition. As you see, the larger you are going on the pilot jet, and the further closed you are getting the idle screw, the better your tip in transition is getting. This is my feeble attempt to try and explain the mechanics of what is happening and what the engineers at Mikuini had in mind. I owned countless Toyota 2TG and 18RG engines with factory Toyota OEM Triples, and they ALL acted the EXACT same way: more than 1 to 1.5 turns out on the idle screw and you were flooded pig rich at idle and encountered transitional bogging or popping. You would think the screw being opened more would be a 'zero sum game' but apparently it's not. The transition ports give FAR more annular area for fuel dumping during tip-in than is available from the single annular area around the idle screw. I hope that made sense...

Z32 Bodies fit easily enough when you replace the stock phenolic spacers with a 25mm thick adapter plate allowing whatever bolt pattern you want to use, sharing as many common bolts as you wish. Z32TB's have a nice centre linkage which can be shortened to retain synch feature and almost literally bolt right on (other then modifying the centre linkage for distance between T/B's) But why stick on duals? Put a plenum on there of 1.5 X Engine Displacement, and a Mazda two-barrel throttle body (twin 45mm I think, and also a progressive option if you look...) would make plumbing that LPG system easier!

Define "overheated"!It's an oft-misused term by many a noob...

I've bought four without the exhausts... They did at one time have a separate P/N for the down pipe alone.

To be honest you can run 16 or up to 18:1 AFR on light cruise. Chrysler lean-burn engines were into the low 20's! You just have to make sure your MAIN tip-in and accel is correct and you will get GREAT fuel economy (not to mention low emissions) and power when you get on it! With 40PHH's on a car with an auto box and 4.11 gears on an L24 I would easily get 24-28mpg at a steady-state 65mph going the 357 miles from my house to my bud's in PHX. They were jetted on the pilots on the verge of coughing and surging at that speed. Do not get hung on 14.7:1, it's more of an emissions thing to supply enough fuel and O2 for catalytic action than about economical running. If you aren't concerned about fuel economy, jet for 5%CO or as high as 12%... Idle on these engines seems to like 13:1, but light cruise? 13:1 may show HP Benefits on a Dyno... But you only need 25hp to move the car at. 65mph.... IMO jetting at that cruise point can be leaned to sacrifice power you don't need in lieu of great fuel economy. You go WOT, the mains kick in and you get 12-13:1 anyway. After your torque peak, you pull fuel -- even on a turbo motor you can pull back to 13.8:1 and keep making power. The inability of carbs to do this under boost combined with their performance in the 3"Hg-3psig turned me to EFI Forevermore. Couldn't get it to do that with carbs... Be glad you're N/A!

It's more for your general education. It's an eye opener. The FSM gives a volume test free-flow at 2500 if I remember correctly.When you see what the stock system does, when you start substituting parts you know your minimum goals (like on your fuel rail! Should function same as stock with the right orifice in there.) Not to cross-pollinate too much, but long ago we made a billet rail counterbored to accept Rochester Carb Jets for the return orifice, in a hole tapped 1/4NPTfor the return fuel barb. Then you can tailor your fuel pressure by reaming or replacing a removable piece and not your rail (which makes goin back where you were on step previously kinda hard!) Just a thought. Cheers! Edit: "It's all been done before!"

Oh, I thought this was going to be commentary on Mexican Engines in Chevys...Canadian Engines in Fords, etc...

MSA makes a nice downpipe for the stock cast iron manifold...

And how is this different in any way that what I listed?

"So I am giving these tid bits of info as background to what I did next. I decided to bolt on my vacuum log again to see if I noticed any difference. The most immediate thing I noticed when driving the car with the vacuum log installed was-- a stabilized AFR on my guage. I couldn't seem to get a stable reading when I first installed the 65's , but with the vacuum log the reading was very stable?? Also, the vacuum log also seemed to lean out my AFR. I don't believe I have any vacuum leaks, the car has a rock steady idle at 750rpm.> I found that my engine smoothed out as well with a similar vacuum log. REMEMBER TO REMOVE IT WHEN YOU SYNCH THE CARBS! With the vacuum log in there, you get a little smoother pulsation in the inlet runner, and not such a "High Spike" so it doesn't 'draw' through the jet as hard for that split fraction of a second that makes it run richer. But as you see, you get more consistent readings. They way I characterized it on my blowthrough turbo application was that before I had the balance log, it almost felt like I could feel the pulse of each cylinder 'hit' as I accelerated under full boost. With the log on there, it was like a turbine---smooth and just pulled without that pulsation of each cylinder hitting on a power stroke. I also didn't pump my gas when hot. In fact, I installed the cooling bodies for between the carb body and accel pump which utilize the fuel return that stopped my percolation and allowed easy 'no cracked throttle extended crank' restarts when hot. usually hard restarts are a problem of too much fuel than not enough. Sloowly crack your throttle about 1/4 way when cranking and see what happens. if it fires easier, you may want to cool the carbs donwn a bit. Chances are good the fuel is perc-ing a little bit and running into the bores causing rich hot restart.

PLC's? Me of course! PC's? Me of course! I love to go back to the corporate office and hand in my laptop to the guys there who go "You did this....yourself?" Yeah, because you aren't hopping on a plane to go fix it for me in Chiang Mai Thailand! My favorite IT suggestion came while in The Congo. "Just go get another laptop in the meantime, put it on your expense report." Yeah, next grass hut with a full-line Dell Service Station I'll just hop right onto the order queue and pick me up a quad-core smokin' bizz-machine! I'll get RIIIGHT on that! Hence, "Rodentia!" Second favorite was being talked through file migration, and me interrupting to say "Uh, these are identical models, can't I just swap the hard drive and send back the broken screen shell to you?" Silence...then a stammering Uh, yeah, do you think you can do that? Are you comfortable doing that? You have to take anti-static precautions you know--do you have a static strap for your wrist? Now HONESTLY I SERIOUSLY asked "Should I take this and do it on my Static Free Workbench?" The sarcastic tone I received in the reply You don't have to be a **** about it! Prompted me to send a photo of my 8' STATIC FREE WORKBENCH for chip insertion and other Board Work I have to do for the company, along with a shot of the dedicated local ground rod and meter reading showing it was free of stray currents. I mean, HEY! I don't know what he meant, since he was mentioning it I thought some extreme precautions were needed and 'better safe than sorry'--my e-mail with the photos basically said that, and commented "I REALLY DO have a static-free work station!" Guy sends e-mail reply I'm really sorry, I thought you were being an ass! Nobody takes static precautions I thought you were mocking me. What equipment does our company manufacture that requires you to use a static-free work station? Hence, "Rodentia!"

The function of the orifice, btw, is due to the variable delivery of the stock fuel pump. Watch what your fuel pressure does at 4500 compared to 6500 and 2500 and idle. The orifice doesn't change, but that pump delivery sure does! Without it, you wouldn't have any fuel pressure at all at idle. And at 6500, you would be running lean lean lean from low pressure as well

Actually, if you look at S30 Sales the 280Z was steady sales performer. The S130 was arguably a different market and sold like hotcakes. But EVERY Z SINCE THE S30 has done EXACTLY the same thing: Big initial sales and declining over the lifecycle of the product. This is in STARK OPPOSITION to the S30 which had flat, reliable sales. If it would have been Porsche, they would have continued with the S130 as a "GT" and the S30 remaining an 'evolutionary' model. 34 years onwards, we would still have an S30 in advanced chassis tune and modern crash and engine configuration (maybe the RB or some emissions compliant variant) along with the transmogulation that followed the S130, Z31, Z32 (dead end.) They had a hit on the S130, best sales ever. But they were headed away down the road of gold chains, cocaine, and whiz-bang marketing types who dreamed of more and more and more....

"For those who have forgotten, In the late 90's and early 2000's. The Twin Turbo Z, T-Turbo Supra, and RX-7 Turbo's all priced themselves out of the market, Two Died, Only the Z survived." Nope, wrongo! Only in the JDM did the Z survive, and then only to 99. It DIED. Resurfaced in 2002. The ONLY supercar to make it through the 90's was HONDA NSX. Honda was the ONLY manufacturer that understood their market, and didn't take an existing product and try to turn it into something it never was! Honda understood that their market for this type of vehicle was EXTREMELY LIMITED and targeted properly: Ferrari Performance at a fraction of the cost. They targeted, marketed, and constructed according to that model and they kept the market and vehicle successfully in production while all the competitors who had great pie-in-the-sky dreams of marketing a massive number and gaining economy of scale failed. There is a REASON the 350Z was set in a niche around a Ford Mustang performance-wise. Remember the original Z? Porsche performance at a fraction of the cost! Had they stuck with that, the would have had a big run. What Nissan / Datsun did was move upmarket and ABANDONED THE NICHE THEY CREATED!!! Subaru claimed it back with the WRX. A car expected to sell maybe 5K units in a year sold 15K the first year, and ended up needing it's own factory to keep up with demand. What you see with the NISMO Z is a squadron of Marketing and Business Management people appealing to those with more money than sense telling the emperor how wonderful his new clothes are...and it isn't until they get to the track that they find the mirror! Less flashy marketing, more substance. Build it, and they will come. Ask Subaru!

I was unaware we were discussing N/A applications. Turbo is the application being discussed, but the reasons for applying it to N/A are equally relevant. I'm missing the 'heat can be released more freely'---please tell me how on Supercharged and N/A engines you release heat "more freely" from the crowns of the pistons. I'm all ears. As for a jet being faulty being a logical fear....same could be said for a spraybar on the cam, drilled cam, or orifice in the timing chain lubrication system. Or for that matter, a plugged main jet on a Weber/Solex.... Or a methanol tank running dry during daily driving... This is a LONGEVITY modification, something you install and FORGET ABOUT, not continually mess, fiddle, adjust or play with. The proof exists that having the jets PROLONGS the piston life. It's NOT one of the modifications that you do that fails the engine if it malfunctions. That cylinder may not last as long. It is an INSURANCE POLICY---as most longevity modifications are. You add the jet to remove heat from the combustion chamber that would normally cause tolerances to have to be looser on the pistons. Please re-read the last couple of posts on the thread. I don't know why you catagorize it as a 'necessary evil'? If it's that big a deal for you, don't do it. Don't backhand the guys trying it and letting others know how it's done! As for 'cooling oil down further' you miss the fact that oil needs to be at a given temperature to do it's job. You cool it all down, you loose horsepower through many different mechanisms. Most engines running 2X factory horsepower already have an auxillary oil cooler on them to control temperatures. This question is a non-starter.

“We have to renew the Z soon, and maybe we should think about making the Z a little bit more, let’s say, what the Z used to be, like the first-generation Z,†he said." Uh DUUUUUUUUH! I didn't want a Ford Ranger V6 of gargantuan size hustling a car the weight of a 77 Chevrolet Impala around, I wanted more of what I liked: Nimble, Quick, and expandable in MY idea of a car, not some MBA from France!

JeffP was running Quaife Equipped R200 at 735RWHP and 500+ torque. Somewhere I have a series of launches on his DOT street-legal slicks (recommended by a ZO6 Owner with 700HP). Before that he had years on the Nissan CLSD R200 and 450 RWHP / 480 RWTQ. You can break anything you want if you try it enough. You're asking about specifics and give us generalities. We can't answer your question until you ask it framed in the context of use. Same as your complaint of the prior threads being 'estimates'... I've seen 10 second Caddy-Powered S30's running the stock open R200 with a welded center and BIG slicks. And hell if that wasn't on U-Joints! As stated, with no angularity in the driveline the ability to transfer torque goes up quite a bit. It isn't the power or torque so much as the angularity putting extra strains (especially on U-Joints!) Realistic Limit? I think they were running 1100HP for enduros in the S130, and 750 in the Z32.... Lots of rebodied Z's in those transition years while they got the new chassis sorted. Like stated...it's all a matter of application. And you didn't give one! So I would take 'realistic' to mean 'previously race proven' and there you have it! And even then, that's only one type of racing. GIGO my man, GIGO!

Don't mind Kiwis and Traveling Engineers, it doesn't take much to start them waxing bikini lines on cloven hooved animals. At least we're not IT Support people buggering rodentia!

You sick minded bastard! I am merely a zoophile, though were I from Columbia my thoughts of actual consummation of my animal love would be considered normal... You're not Columbian, perchance are you? It explains all the coke coming from there, though. Thinking donkeydorkin is normal and healthy... I mean a DONKEY! Some strumpet of low birth giving it up for anybody and their uncle with some lettuce. You have to have good bamboo chutes to woo the Bubalus Mindorensis! Not exactly high maintenance, but at least they have their standards! Higher than the PO of your car, apparently as well, judging by that black spooge on the bottom of the tank! Aren't you glad you looked in there now? Looks like they were inveterate 'halftankers' the way that top line looks corroded! Sometimes there is junk that breaks free and lodges in the return elbow just inside the tank. You can clear it out with a brazing rod or coathangar.

That looks more like a Carabao.... Tamaraws are indigenous to Mindoro and are a miniature species found nowhere else in the world. I would never debase myself with some run of the mill bubalus, but for the rare and sensitive, endangered bubalus mindorensis... I want exotic, Filipina-Only Tamaraw! Once you go Tamaraw, you know they got yaw! Why you ask? Their horns are much more swept back, thus facilitating their use as handles during nocturnal activities at which the bubalus mindorensis excels! WHAT IS THAT BEHIND ME?

Tamaraws under the Nipa Hut, actually...

Also, you do not necessarily want 'colder temps across the board'---you want some areas hot, other areas cold. In terms of pistons, you want them as cool and thermally stable as you can get them. If you truly read the thread, you would see the jets are check-controlled. They will turn off at idle when not needed. VERY utilitarian, and a 'relatively recent' development as usually they are 'always on'... No wasteage of oil when idling and the pump is putting out less flow, on and cooling when the engine needs it most: higher rpms and likely more load from throttle position. Comprende, Newbmigo? Did I coin another Signature Phrase for the Tagging Moderators there, or what?

"I have ben reading and following this particular thread with some real interest. There is only 1 thing that pops into my mind over and over again. Why so much time and money into a "possibility" of this truly working without major modding nessary? To me refineing air flow, OIL flow/cooling, and water temps, would accomidate colder temps across the board. Why the main concern for pistions? " Because your main premise for this logic line is incorrect. If you cool the oil, what do you gain? Colder oil. You do not take any heat out of the pistons. With refining of airflow (which I can only think means porting the head) would increase BMEP, meaning more heat in the combustion chamber. While it's true that thermodynamically ceramic coating the piston crowns will retain heat in the chamber where it can better drive a turbine or whatever... you have in some cases DOUBLED the heat load on the crown of the piston. Now, if you could REFINE THE OIL FLOW TO DIRECTLY COOL THAT AREA do you see a benefit at 2X heat load? What about 3X? What about 4X stock HP loading? Tim's at 4X BTU Throughput on his engine at around 600+HP. That's about HALF the most I've heard of for an endurance engine, and nobody I know has revealed what is inside that engine---but let it be said the 1100HP L28 was built around RACING BODY SANCTIONING RULES which indeed may preclude such modifications. On the street, absent of rules like this, it can be pursued. Now, the "Why so much time and money" and your use of the word "POSSIBILITY"---read the last few posts over again and then it only becomes "How MUCH benefit" not "possibility"... It is widely done---it's not a theory, it's a fact. There is no 'possibility' about it. It was just a matter of time before someone had the time and inclination to see if it would FIT. As I said, FITTMENT is the LARGEST HURDLE to implementation of this technology, the second is engineering imperative. Seemingly the RB Engine has them, at only around what...240HP for an RB26DETT? So making 3X the power of that....the question becomes "WHY NOT?" The L-Engine was not envisioned to have 240HP continuously, and those L-Engines that DID has RADICALLY RECAST heads and cooling water flows (look at Alan Thomas' FIA Six Cylinder Head Photos.) Indeed, read more, investigate and the logic becomes 'why not', and not 'why'!

That is the easiest way: 4 speeds have that stamped sheetmetal cover forward of the shifter...5speeds don't.