Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
It's a JDM clock that came on second-generation S30's.
It's a Fairlady Z Clock.
Knob for setting date and hand calibration to proper hour.
Time is the same as in the USA 12 at top, 6 at bottom, 3 on right side, 9 on left side.
-
Well Howler Monkey, I think you're being a bit obtuse: Speed takes Horsepower.... Please go back and read what I posted regarding poo-poohing of Rebello's claim of 400HP and the Drag/HP requirement to go 170mph+ at Bonneville. It directly contradicted the claim that the "Rebello 400" engine build "only in a pinch" made 290-330 HP. At the minimum the Drag/Speed/HP requirement was closer to 375, and was very near the 365 claimed the engine was to have produced.
If you have a problem with me, take it to PM from this point forward--I believe my points were well laid out and anybody who actually READ them and didn't come in with a predisposed bias towards me. The Bonneville speeds were proffered as direct measurement methodology for ACTUAL horsepower produced, and not DYNO horsepower.
-
Fine and good, unless it was a five speed, I've never heard of G-Force doing a conversion to a four speed!
-
Yep, I think the Mini would be in there along with the Beetle. Tapioka discounts the largest mass produced vehicle of all time. Virtually continuous production on the same chassis from 1934 to 2003 or thereabouts. The ONLY reason it went out of production in Mexico (where it was the most popular Taxicab) was the Federal Government changed the law to mandate that Taxicabs have four door, and the Nissan Altima was the replacement.
Even though briefly VW de Mexico considered a stretch Beetle...
I mean you had almost 70 years on the SAME platform (unlike Toyota and it's claim of 'best selling all time 22 million units-Corolla'---anybody who thinks a 2012 Corolla even faintly resembles a 1969... You look at a 34 Beetle, and a 2003 Beetle and it's almost like you could swap body parts -- hell, you may have been able to!)
I think Adolph and VW AG got their tooling cost recovered.
-
This is the unit I got, it was something like 129$ on sale when I got it, which was CHEAPER than their 15# unit which was NOT on sale at the time!!!!
The Pressure Pot units work FAR better than the siphon type. And they sit with the blazting medium all secure without anything getting into it for a loooong time.
Mice got into the Trinco, and now I'm blasting with a mix of expensive Ballotini Glass Beads and goddamned rat turds...
The stripping power of the pressure pots is higher BY A FACTOR than siphon styles.
I've had an ALC Sandy-Jet since 1985 (which is what the HF units are a direct copy of) and I've run all sorts of crap through it, from Unstrained Beach Sand to Black Magic and walnut shell. They work, but for limited work smaller pressure pots do more work with less media than the suction style.
One of the advantages of the pressure pot is less dust. You get so much better efficiency from the pressure pot, you throw so much more media at such a lower pressure the media doesn't break up and dust like with a siphon gun. Generally they say if you are dusting excessively you are using too much pressure.
For efficient Suction Gun operation I'm running massive CFM at 90psig. For the same kind of work with a pressure pot I'm running between 40 and 60psig!!! The pressure pot acts like more receiver space, so your compressor (at least mine) seems to run less for the same amount of work being done.
For an electric bill, that is nice!
Understand this... For BIG jobs, I have TWO 450 gallon receivers behind my shed... I hook them together and then I hook up an old diesel compressor like this to the receivers:
That doesn't have enough power to make 100psi, but it will return 90 psi all day long...
And I go to the rental yard and rent a BIG pressure pot. I can strip frames, clean concrete, just about anything. No electric bill at all!
I've got serious compressor available (as long as I keep it under 90 psig)
Hell, if you Google Map or Google Earth my address, you can see that Blue IR sitting out at the back of the property next to JeffP's 280ZX Drag Car!
-
Hey, was that Red Car at Muscle Car Masters at Eastern Creek two years ago? I think I have photos of that thing!
-
They are available with a Nissan Part Number.
In the fuel subforum custom solutions were discussed extensively.
-
I will NEVER strip my engine bay with a suction gun EVER again!
Pressure Pot, maybe.
Chemical Stripper with shrouded spot blaster, definitely!
-
I actually have a stand alOne pressure pot that I woo snake into the blast booth for difficult jobs.
The pressure pots are FAR mor efficient units, taking more off at lower pressure than you ever will with a suction gun.
The media is usually reusable several times out of a pressure pot, and dusting is considerably less.
-
When you pump 6X Stock Horsepower through most any production car engine, you 'have issues'...
SBC's have crossover ports that have to be plumbed at a given HP range as well.
Push anything enough, and the original design intent will be exceeded and require modification.
I don't know I'd classify that as 'having issues'... nor would I classify it as a defect of any sort.
The Nissan Heads specifically designed for high specific output application for the L-Series don't need anything done to them at serious HP multipliers. We mostly choose to work on heads that are readily available and misapplied to our application.
Not everyone can dig up an LY or FIA Cylinder head, or buck up the 35,000 Euros to have one replicated!
-
And load your software on someone else's laptop and test anything you suspect may be a problem with the MS on it...
You never suspect the comm chip going bad in your laptop. Mine did and it was the root of all evil in my startup.
Fixed my laptop, and all was right with the world!
-
You mean besides the VW Beetle? 7
-
E-Motive principals are quick to point out they never had a DNF due to cooling issues!
-
Sheep aren't involved in the Shed Seclusion are they?
There are sheep near my shed. Keeps me out there for extended periods as well, no reason to go up to the house...
-
I would say I'd like to see it run and it's results, yes!
NASCAR is a limited engine class true, unlike Bonneville where as long as the head studs aren't moved you can pretty much do what you want based on the stock head.
I'm sure V8 Supercars is similarly restricted in many aspects.
None of the L-Heads I've seen by anyone are close to the FIA L-Heads cast by Nissan in limited numbers.
And let's recall the old 1983 Road & Track article quoting E-motive at 750HP @ 7500 and 21.6 psi boost... Which was accurate, but did not reveal the true capability of the engine of 1100HP @ 9000 and 30+ psi boost. The L-Engine is not to be underestimated. Especially as somehow limited as a two valve non-crossflow head.
Ultimately, the PMCS/Nissan teams ceased development on the S20 around 345HP from 1998cc's back in 1971~2
At the time it was pursued because it was thought the L24 was not capable of reliable operation at 9KRPMs... They only had slightly lower output, but were more drivable.
-
Building motors and sharing your knowledge is appreciated.
But I don't like negative marketing, or sweeping broad based characterisations based on one, or even a series of engines.
I've worked with most major compressor OEM's, and can say the basic physical laws governing them are all the same. I will be very careful answering customers questions regarding marketing claims. I know knocking another's product will likely as not get you booted from a project.
I'll Market on my strengths, and rely on others to do the same. I'll educate based on the facts as I know them, but unless I've been there and seen how they do it, I'm very reticent to place my methodologies or results to someone else's build.
We had some vitriol here over someone with a street L24 making 300+ with many calling BS as "Race Engine Builders" weren't getting that kind of power...disregarding the obvious fact that you don't have to conform to formula or class rules when making a street engine! It was foolish and unproductive to argue the obvious success of the particular build. As was it unproductive to knock the original FYI in light if it's obvious success.
Bring what you have to the table, it's more than welcome and interesting. But if there's knocking of another's product, in light of unanswerable queries, consider that indeed the best course is to stick with ones own wares and reserve comment on others.
The reason I asked originally about your reasoning behind the choice of RB26 over RB25 heads is that your favourite US Engine Builder is in work on an RB25 Head setup...
-
Wallace Racing Top Speed Calculator for Bonneville:
2400# (likely light, I'm sure Burton, like us added somewhere on the line of 300#+ for traction)
Cd .465
F/A 22
Result: 370HP under the best conditions of traction..
Right in line with your claim of the claim elsewhere of 365hp for the 3.0
How do you reconcile these numbers, sir?
I don't dispute your testing of the engine in your possession.
What I do dispute is the backhanded manner in which you dismiss with caviler attitude even the possibility that is is a valid HP claim in light of the facts behind running at Bonneville and being powered by a "Rebello400"?
This same calculator pegged our 2900# 76 280Z with Undertray and G-Nose ( .38 Cd, same frontal) at 311HP with our dyno then showing 317! Like I said: "Scary Close"...
-
Nothing more disappointing than someone with a closed mind.
It us capable to back calculate horsepower from drag coefficient, frontal area. Thanks for seeing the point of my posts 260DET.
I've always found it a bit common to peddle ones wares by disparaging another's.
All I ever asked for was he do the calculations before being so emphatic in his "impossibility" claims.
I guess an 11,600 RPM L-2X Engine is impossible as well...
-
I'm kind of disappointed that this newcomer refuses to answer technical questions and seems content to Pass judgement on other people's work. And indeed the 400hp claim was N/A from Rebello, check their website. the Red #7770 car... Well that's covered in the other thread and no reply to the top speed/drag coefficient/frontal area calculation requested to resolve the issue once and for all...
I asked which engine he claimed to make 600hp on, the plenum engine, or the ITB one...
I understand he has a business and he's beating the bushes to scare up business and raise some potential customers. But I'm really saddened he poo-poohs technical questions which would cast his aspersions in an unfavourable light.
Physical laws exist in this world, and while he obsessed on micro examples, he refuses to see the overall macro example which directly and irrefutably overturns his contentions.
As to the turbo power claims, that was on a Mustang calibrated to, and traceable to Appropriate SAE Specs as the facility is used for emissions certification tests by OEMs. It was arrived at comfortably and without custom plenum with the full knowledge the stock OEM manifold is killing 30cfm per port. But that's at 25"... Another technical specific left out... I shan't digress further.
The posts thusfar have proven interesting. I'm just seriously disappointed that all we ate going to get to counter questions is a lockstep salesmanship line. Very disappointing indeed!
-
To Gollyms point of HP is HP, is what I was getting at by using drag figures and top speed.
Drag race simulations I don't put a lot of faith in, they all peg me around 202hp in my stock 76... I don't think so!
BUT...
Top speed running on a closed course and calibrated traps show my HP to be EXACTLY (almost to the HP!) the 147 i previously dynoed the car at.
Drag and top speed are very closely related, grip and many other factors that come int play on 1/4 mile cease to exist in that test. We all don't have that testing capability, but I do, which is why I'm interested in the claim that the 400hp engine only makes 290 when in fact the facts of the top speed test DEFY that statement.
There is no way to "cheat" and arrive to a 173+ mph top speed in a stock bodied open-maw 240Z with ONLY 290 HP! it CAN'T happen. We did it in our car with a .38 cd. With the stock .465? No way.
Like I said, the calculations will tell you the HP requirement to go that fast, and even if you use another frontal area published... It's well upwards of 330-340 HP!
-
And again, I don't care what theoretical calculations on head flow say.
The numbers for horsepower required at speed are well documented (and coincidentally matched within a few HP of our dyno testing) for our speeds at Bonneville. We run closer to a .38 cd, and had around 320 at the rear wheels. Burton had a Bone-Stock .465cd car and went within 0.125mph as we did, obviously he DID NOT have 330HP.
Pete, you're claiming Rebello's 400HP claim is bogus---please sir do the math on my example. It's not going to go that fast with only 330HP! physically impossible.
The stock Zed is drag limited in stock engine form. It's aero is only slightly worse than a 4x8' sheet of plywood or Splitwindow VW Kombibus.
You're intent on saying it isn't possible. I am giving you third-party independent verification that indeed it is!
Our ports on our engine were flowing 220/175 and made 320 to the rear wheels at 8250rpms. It jibes almost exactly with our calculated drag HP requirements of a two way average of 173.325 and a best mile at 176.006. That can be tailwind explained. It's scary close.
There is no way the Rebello Motor in #7770 only made 320 "in a pinch"... If you would do the math on your own with the verifiable figures give you above, you can calculate damn close what that Rebello engine WAS, indeed producing.
-
SAE gives HP Rating standards. If not done according to SAE/JIS/DIN standards and specified beforehand, just about any dyno reading is useless for comparison to another unit. It's only validity is relative to the last test on the same unit in a series of comparison runs.
I am unfamiliar with "Aussie HP" but somewhere it has to be traceable to SOME engineering standard for achieving a standardised test result or it's useless. State the standard being used, and knowing the standard originally employed conversion mathematically is fairly straightforward.
Like JIS PS to SAE HP to DIN Kw ... It's all mathematical derivation of instantaneous torque measured by load cell deflection or current absorption in an electric load cell and extrapolation based on rotary speed at the time the reading was taken...
-
Freshmen
Louts, Cretins...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Reading that one made my day. Very valid points, especially on some aspects of salary not being tied to strict engineering skills. Got a contemporaneous Young Turk in his early 30's hot to get more money, and therefore aggressively pursuing his MBA as the path to riches.
Astoundingly good young field engineer. GREAT hands-on guy with a mind like a sponge when it comes to learning from others. And also the kind of guy who starts gnawing on his cubicle Walls after about a month "inside" the home office. Spent three years as our China Engineering Liason.
I sit back and smile as we all have our revelations in due course. I was EXTREMELY fortunate to toss "management" to the curb in my late 20's and concentrate in the field. I am not happy in the office. I figure thus young guy will get exactly what he wishes for... And will either become CEO or dump it to come to the field... "That's not the job you're looking for..Move Along!" (Obi Wan Voice there...)
He will learn! LOL
If he would just come to service group, he'd quickly realize his effective salary would double...
But like Kiwi, he would have to endure "Hardship Postings" - which if nobody has read the books by Stuart Lloyd (Expat Misadventures in Asia) I'd highly recommend it.
Just don't give it to the wankers Kiwi mentioned who were complaining about unemployment rates of pay and the burger flippers!!!
-
I have a full-on two person Trinco Blast Cabinet with Recovery Vacuum filled with 100# of Ballotini Glass Beads...
For me, it was easier to get the smaller soda blaster pressure pot than drop my beads!
Actually, the performance if the HF Soda Blaster was better since it was a pressure-pot style. My cabinet is suction based. I could blast at 40psi on the Soda where with the suction gun I needed closer to 85 for the same sort of results.
You could do it, if you have s pressure pot style blaster I'd say definitely. But I'd think long and hard about a siphon gun, the high pressures make really fine dust. Wear a damn good respirator if you do that!
I used the HF blaster in the open air, as cleanup is easy with the garden hose. I was spot blasting body panels and larger parts that I didn't want in my box screwing up my bead. I'd never used the soda before, and was happy with the results.
twin cam L6 3.4L
in Nissan L6 Forum
Posted · Edited by Tony D
If someone wants to refute a thread, do so on something OTHER than a Dyno which is USELESS from one rig to the next.
As set forth in the argument: HP/Drag is a scary close taskmaster.
ANYBODY coming on a offhand making disparaging remarks with little proof based on ONE engine put on ONE dyno deserves a little reality check for making the comments.
ALL I originally said was "FYI Rebello was making 400HP Engines" and basically "I HOPE someone could make 400 with 3.5 liters and that kind of valve flow area."
Persistence on calculated flow numbers as a reason something "couldn't possibly be done" is also another fallacy when indeed, the car made the speed---how is that explained?
I don't think the OP or I share ANY animosity whatsoever, I think we came to a mutual agreement on terms.
What kills me is people who come whining and take offense where none was given, nor taken. I guess you all can be offended for the OP who doesn't seem offended at all, and reasonably discussed the disparity being brought up.
You want to make claims about someone else's build you do so at your own peril. Supra510, you show me an exact ENGINEERING FORMULA recognized by SAE, JIS, TUV, or any other sanctioned engineering body to calculate WHEEL HORSEPOWER from CRANKSHAFT HORSEPOWER.
I can show you where CRANKSHAFT HORSEPOWER STANDARDS exist from SAE. IF the dyno was calibrated and test conducted to SAE standards (as stated earlier) then conversion to ANY OTHER ENGINEERING EQUIVALENT is simple math. Which was another point made (you obviously missed it.)
Which brings us full circle to "Dyno Numbers are useless" so making offhand comments based on them on someone else's build is equally as useless and shouldn't be done.
Sean came in Dont drown in HP wiggly waggling posting nothing technical, just mommy's admonition. And well after the point was discussed and a resolution was come to. If you guys just want someone to come on and say "I'm going to make this, and it's going to have XXXXHP and blah blah blah" then fine, you get what you get. For my money, I'd like to see results, and without disparagement of another builder. Maybe you guys like negative marketing, or badmouthing someone who isn't around to defend the claims... But I don't.
I'll leave it up to the moderators to cull anything they want out of this thread and 'clean it up'...including fawning praise with nothing technical to ask or add...
If anybody causes anybody to leave, it's going to be the ersatz grammar police who went damn well personal with their attacks on the guy.
But I'm the bad guy for standing up for no badmouthing other builders based on one build, and 'if it's impossible explain how the example exists'? Either we got more non-engineers here who don't understand 'proof and logic' or I don't know what... just because someone asks questions to clarify a statement based on an empirical standard that is traceable and verifiable mathematically does not mean it's a 'battle royale'!