Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
"Supporting our lightened 240 on three corners and loading the fourth confirmed my belief at the time of build.
Prior to extra spot welding, either unsupported rear corner deflected 7mm with 250kg load and either front corner an average of 9mm.
There was a small amount of radial twist measurable diagonally through the cabin space but this didn't exceed 2mm in any direction.
Interestingly, while there was a small amount of rotation in the door openings, at no time did it become enough to prevent hanging and closing the doors which tells me that the sill rail beam is pretty sturdy.
For an un-modified body that's actually pretty darn good compared to many "modern" cars!
After hours of spot welding (about 6 altogether) the same tests were carried out.
The rear deflection came down to less than 2mm and the front to less than 5mm."
An Engineer can convert that to a torsional stiffness number improvement!
"That leaves joint 7 and this IS a problem area as can be testified by anyone who loses a windshield during a gravel rally or trial."
Or anybody with enough torque and grip to twist the area because they were foolish enough to build the car for the street without foresight to put in a proper cage! (Hey, I was 23...and was forewarned, having a friend with a V8 Pinto that would pop rear glass on corner exit---out and onto the pavement behind the car! "Hey Jaques, you lost your back window!"
) -
OEM's are using it as an integral design of the vehicle not as a substitute for a proper cage.
The reason I made the statement I did was he IMPLIED that vehicles thussly constructed are somehow exempted from having a cage.
THEY ARE NOT.
Structural foam used as an integral part of a vehicle's design improves Governmentally-Mandated crashworthiness. That requirement is a FAR CRY from competition-sanctioning-body approval to "eliminate cages" or whatever foolishness he put forth initially.
It's governmentally acceptable...
But not to an extent that it exempts them from caging in competition, or from chassis reinforcement for competition use at this present time.
I think our mate from Australia brings forth the most relevant and pertinent example of what 'naysayers' have contended all along: conventional preparation of the chassis with proper weldments of the seams will perform on the S30 to a practical equivalent of adding the foam, but without impeding any future repairs required.
If your goal is to make something that is basically a "Throwaway" vehicle (like the direction today's cars are going) then, BY ALL MEANS, foam the rockers, A & C pillars, hell construct the entire interior out of freeform sculpted foam.
But if you want a car that is repairable, best skip it.
-
They're not 'knock offs' they're Celica Mirrors!
-
"I wish I'd spent the extra money when I built my engine and loaded it with forged pistons."
I am included in this same regard with my last 'bought' VW overhaul...didn't think I had the money for the counterweighted crank to allow reliable revving over 5K, and the way it runs, I've been sorry now for about 68,000 miles! When this one dies, the CW Crank will go in, and I once again will have an 8500 rpm Turbo T1 Bus!
Shifting at 5000 sucks! Especially when you've tasted the fruits on the other side of the fence!
-
I'm in the same boat as Duragg...coming out (you don't 'move them an inch'---they are coming out, getting thrown away, and being replaced...) a shot of CO2'd Alky down the bore (or LN2) will shock-shrink the guides free to easily knock them out with a hammer and the tool shown (remember stock guides are iron/steel based.)
The most important thing is when coming out they don't gall the head requiring oversized guides for the way back in!
Going in, some more freezing, a little heat, and they go in like nobody's business. Actually the tool shown and a small hammer lightly but quickly tapping them will seat them to the limit-ring easily with little fuss. I've seen guys drive them in with Moly and a Press...but I like chilling and less force.
But you aren't simply going to "move" them...once the process starts, it's all the way out and replacement time.
-
"Bastard Z?"
Hmmm,in production from 1973 until 1978 worldwide seems to indicate something must have been right in what they did...
The 280Z was a hacked response to comply with meddlesome US/North American Standards. NORTH AMERICA was the one who got 'The Bastard'---everybody else got a car with skinny bumpers that looked for all intents and purposes like the original 240Z from 1971/72.
-
I don't ever recall anybody even suggesting that placement for the air filter---the wiper area.
-
"Won't soak up and hold water... "
Unless damaged,or inundated...
-
I bought mine straight.
-
Still waiting on that FIA ruling where you can use foam-stiffened chassis members in lieu of a roll cage...
-
I don't think so, Cowl induction is popular on domestic muscle cars, but the Z didn't come with one...No shaker hood, nuthin!
You're breaking new ground, let us know how it turns out.
-
Most OEM's run the return line through factory surge tanks. If you uncover the main tank pickup under high load, the surge tank will stop getting fuel. Any return fuel coming in could be the difference in running, or running lean. (Boom)
The Ford Bronco II has this type of setup.
Heating of the fuel is a function of flow through the tank and proper line sizing. There ARE fueling setups that run no return line to the surge tank, but run an FPR on the surge tank on it's return line to hold 3psi in the boost system with an ignition cut on a Hobbs Switch to kill the engine if the pressure drops to less than 1psi. Failsafe.
The #75 Cunningham Racing Z32 had 4" diameter surge tanks (TWO of them!!!) fed by two pumps each, and main pump feeding left and right bank (two main pumps, four boost pumps...) The surge tanks were from the roofline, to the skid plate under the car. Almost 42" Tall! They did NOT want to run lean under boost!
-
Yeah, we got an old Southern saying that is applicable: "Slaves is Slaves!"
-
That,kiwi, is what gets rid of little brothers...
Hey, Nick, watch this: ssssssssssungh! Darn I "couldn't" get to the wire. Chris, you try! ssssssungh! Darn, I "couldn't" get there either. Well, no sense in you even trying, Nick..."you're just a little kid, if we can't reach it, YOU never could!"
"OH YEAH!?!?!? WATCH THIS!!!"
"sssssSSSSSAAAAAAURRRGH!!!!"
See ya later little bro!
I think he was scarred for life. Walking through that dewey grass, thoroughly wetted to mid-thigh. Oh yeah, the ground path must have been excellent!
-
Im not a numbers guy, give me the tranny by nomenclature (late ZX or S30 5 speed and 240SX Five speed for example) and I can tell you generally what's what.
In that above case, the slaves fit. All the slaves fit. The pushrods are different length.
In fact, if you mismatch the collar on the S30 trannies, and it won't let the car move, the shorter rod from the 240SX Slave will fit into the slave you have and usually works to give it a release point.
The 240SX uses a different style intermediate cylinder (at least on the 91 I took apart) that is a bit different, but the mounting on the bellhousing is identical.
-
ACtually "Good Stuff" now makes a fire-block foam that is better than the old silicone stuff you used to have to mix. Frankly, if I was to spray anything anywhere, it would be that!
I think as a poster of the thread, you could delete your own post for a period of time. After that...it persists....
It's like going pee on an electric fence. You only do it once...after that you learned your lesson and take a little more time putting thought into some things before just letting it fly!
-
I have to say MikeK brings up a big thing nobody talks about: Talking with the Employer beforehand.
Nobody sees a layoff coming...these days it's in some cases (with new laws) more cushioned if you work for a big company.
I worked at a large corporation with started out 6 months ahead of time saying there would be layoffs. I offered then as the highest paid hourly employee to take a lower paying position in operations (instead of maintenance) to allow our company to function better as this was the only opportunity to 'cull the deadwood' of one gent that was 40+ and a drag on us all.
Ultimately, I was sacked the same day as 1500 other people but I didn't get that severance package. Old age and incompetence got me, as I tried to clean up a mess someone else made and it got out of hand. Over the next several years, the company was sold 6X...the guy they retained ended up costing them a $100K environmental compliance fine as well as costs for continuous emissions monitoring, and eventually they fired him on another sale where the guy was out on a rehab bender (again) and they tested him upon return.
The thing Mike mentions was applicable in my case: every quarter they obsessed on my salary and how it was coming out of THAT plant instead of being spread across four regional plants as originally planned. My willingness to take on less responsibility didn't work in their plans. So they saved $X per quarter sacking me. The month after I left, our outside contractor costs went through the roof. In the end, though they saved $X quarterly on my salary and benefits, they cost themselves $2.8X Quarterly in outside vendor and contractor costs. Yep, that made financial sense.
My prior 'small business' guy cut people like cordwood. They were expendable. I shook my head at the panic due to lack of simple business acumen (or more appropriately, the avaricious ***** of a wife he had with her appetite for consumption and free spending...Though his penchant for litigating undoubtedly cost some of those 'cash pot' funds...)
Really, it sounds daunting, and whatever you choose to do, cultivate your own job. Make one for yourself. Nobody I know of who has made the jump to self-employment has regretted it. With my situation changing now at this point in my life, I may even make a transition to contract work from employee. I had my taste for the little time I could...and I LIKED it.
If you get people working for you doing the same thing, there is an immense satisfaction at helping out other people that are like minded as well...though the responsibility to keep them busy/employed can weigh on you. But maybe we're putting the cart before the horse.
Get a job first, I guess...then we can worry about your underlings and their families as you take your yearly month long excursion to Aruba for vacation....during the rainy cold months when you are traditionally slow...
Good Luck and keep a positive outlook.
-
The aforementioned SMC which from my understanding has been knocked off by MSA.
The lever length is the same, the throws are very short. As I said, it works well with a long shift-knob extension and angling towards the steering wheel. I know people who 'miss shifts' as the gating gets VERY short with that shifter mod, but with the extension the throw is longer (like stock) but your hand is never more than hovering difference from the steering wheel.
Some discussion on here about cutting down the Truck Shifter which also has a similarly-altered shift pivot point, and by cutting down the shifter you get something that looks stock height with shortened throws (increased effort over what it was in the truck, though...)
I'm in the process of converting all my cars to the 240SX transmission as they go out, so I'll use the commercially extant shifters for that when the time comes! Many selections in that arena now...even some showing up in the junkyards now!
-
" But I also like the idea of the MSD box that does digital programable timing and delete the flyweights."
This will also suffer from occasional windup in the gears associated with the distributor drive.
As I stated in the past, we used the E-Motive small Hall Effect Pickup to time our Bonneville Car to 8500+ rpms, which is the limit of the smaller wheel per E-Motive.
We went to full sized crankfire on the damper for the engine running above that point as we started having intermittent failures from the poor resolution of the small disc on a hall-effect sensor even turning at half-engine speed.
The MSD box will not show spark scatter with the timing light you are currently using. It will 'fix' your problem. But if you start using the same test equipment we use, you will see that lash show up in timing variation.
Hell, we haven't even gotten into triggering of the timing light based on where the rotor fires to the cap tower variation...
I guess I don't have any understanding of this subject so I'll just bow out now. I'm kinda in the same boat as NewZed in this regard...I don't see the point for the stated usage. It's making work to no end effect.
-
"What part about mechanical devices don't YOU understand? I think its the part about centrifugal governors, so let me help you.
I own 2 aircraft now which have a combined total of 9 centrifugal devices of identical design which all function flawlessly. Ok? Prop govorners, fuel control units, overspeed and underspeed controllers, mag timing, etc plus a shitload more in various cars and aircraft I have owned, managed, flown and fixed over the years. "
You mean like a Woodward EGP or EGB, PG or PGL Steam Turbine Governor (or used on various ICE's for decades)? Or perhaps the Governors on Continental Lycoming Packette PE150's 90's and 75's...Been there, done that, Factory Repped it for a while...
(Incidentally, most one of those devices you mention rely on the flyweights dampened with springs and in constant fluid motion---in normal operation they NEVER should reach a 'locked' point where the levers push against a solid stop...other than the limit screws on the arms. THAT is why you see it in the distributor and not the other devices, they are on the ramp dampened by springs and in some instances hydraulic pressures and usually have VERY tight drive trains which don't have excessive lash or operate at reduced oeprational speeds so that this effect is minimized...)
The government employee reference was simply the obsession at using a DIGITAL DEVICE (the dial-back timing light) to quantify a mechanical device which has inherent lash in it: you invented an issue, which is not in practical application an issue whatsoever then are spending an inordinate amount of time looking for a solution, which ultimately will be what everybody (or at least I) was telling you was going to be the ultimate outcome: it's not going to change anything. It's my observation of many Governmental Programs, if it offends you then I apologize for calling you a Government Employee---it was a rhetorical analogy based on my observation of the similarities, nothing more. Nothing personal.
In all the above devices, when using a DIGITAL timing mechanism, you will see VARIATION in EVERY instance. They are not 'smooth and flawless' --- including those damnable governors. The fluctuations are EXTREME if you have the right analytical equipment. Using period correct diagnostic devices (in some cases FAA Dictated stuff) you will see 'rock solid' numbers when in fact the cyclic variations of the flyweights on the levers balanced against the hydraulic cushion is something that is VERY complex to get balanced. And even when you do...IT IS STILL A COMPROMISE.
Hence looking for something that is 'perfect' when 'perfect' doesn't exist!
I type all caps as in voice communication I would raise my voice one octave, or speak louder at that point to EMPHASIZE that point.
You asked if it can be fixed: yes it can, asked and answered: DIGITAL CONTROL OFF THE CRANKSHAFT.
It's even legal in SCCA Competition for some reason. The number of Electramotive Digital Timing boxes on Z's increases every year......
The Crane (as stated originally) only processes signals it receives. The reasons for any spark scatter have been delineated in detail. If you have spark scatter, it's not electrical switching error. Most definitely at that RPM point. If you ask for an answer, and want to ignore it, at least say that is what you're doing rather than continually restating the issue like nobody has addressed it previously.
I have already stated the universal fact that all OEM's have agreed exists: The timing variation can NOT 'be fixed' it can ONLY be 'minimized'---and for OEM's these days, that is not good enough! When you come to the same conclusion, you can look back on this I suppose. What you do at that point is up to you.
You're going to 'minimize it' you won't 'fix' it---which to me means totally eliminate it. Unless you start using more period correct instrumentation which will not reveal the scatter.
If you want the quickest fix, just static time it. Then you don't have any problem as you can't see anything. I know people who static time their cars using points and a test light and will argue up and down their car also 'runs flawlessly'...
To them, it does. They just don't understand the dynamics involved.
-
I'm still waiting for the quotation of the FIA section that allows a foam filled structure to replace a roll cage...
Foaming an interior component to fill a void and prevent accident acceleration of body parts is well documented since Volvo started putting cardboard tubes in the door finisher panels to prevent broken knees during side impacts with the new federally-mandated door bars in 73...
Similarly, composite construction utilizing structural foams is also well documented.
But the thought that you can spray stuff inside an existing structure that was not originally designed to have it used in such a matter is again belying sound engineering basis for support.
Just because something works well in ONE application does NOT mean you can apply it with similar results everywhere. It simply doesn't work that way.
And, to put it bluntly (as John Coffey did...) it screws up more on the car than it will EVER fix.
That being said, I 'Great Stuff' foamed the C-Pillar area on my 1966 Corvair Corsa. This is a WELL DOCUMENTED modification to the car (extant from the 70's when you bought foams in two parts mixed them in bags and quickly stuffed them where you wanted it!) It is not for structural enhancement, but rather to acoustically block an open channel from the engine room DIRECTLY to the rear seat door panel. To quiet the interior, it worked phenomenally well. Combined with some closed-cel Aircraft Firewall Insulation (from Aircraft Spruce) the interior of that car was considerably quieted down. Applying similar teqhniques to the VW Bus had NO effect, as the Germans had a bit more foresight than to allow a large hole bigger than two fists (on each side) from a fire-prone area directly to the vehicle's interior. So then you get to figure out what solvent removes/disolves the damn stuff because if it gets poked for any reason, and the 'skin' is penetrated all it does is become a big sponge to hold moisture on unprotected panels. (Look at the Cowl Piece on many early cars where that resonance-deadening sponge was applied, and then allowed the cowl to rust from the UNDERNEATH up into that fresh paint job you did just a month before...)
I've not seen ONE car come by me with PROPER structural foam utilized. UNIVERSALLY it's been "Great Stuff" in the red cans, and that's not the same stuff. There is a discussion about 'urethane' foams, which is about as generic and improper as you can get! Even if you do get proper structural hard urethane foams...Don't do it. Quit arguing about something that wasn't considered---the applications are not what was in discussion and only adds to the confusion surrounding this SPURIOUS application of product from internet myth and misapplication! "Great Stuff" is not styrofoam, and it may not be a polystyrene foam any longer given gevernment mandates. The ability to get Silicone Foams has had the Corvair World change from the original Polyurethane Foams to Silicone-Based RTV Foams for the 'fire stop' capability so that the original 'soundblock' fucntion for the modification comes with a PRACTICAL fire-safing of the interior of the car.
-
It obviously occurs as frequently as that other thing oft-spoken of: "Rain" and "Snow"
These, too, are foreign to me and would like an explanation of "Lock", "Rain", and "Snow"!
I have a feeling in Koniambo I will be introduced to one of them...
-
Noisy valves are happy valves.
Quiet valves are hot, ready to burn valves!
-
Yep!
MLS do not compress. They are resuable. Short drives like when testing an engine leads to condensation. If you don't get it up to temperature (oil to 200+) then you will have water in there. If you have a PCV under a slight vacuum in the gearcase, you will 'boil' at a marginally earlier temperature as well. Usually the oil is hottest rolling in from the head, or directly off the bearings---that is where water should be flashing off to steam to be evacuated. If you don't have some place for it to go (PCV, or enough blow-by flow from bad rings to push it out your road-draft tube...) it will stay in there and just build to the point that it turns into sludge.
In Michigan during the winters, people that lived and worked in-town and drove less than 5-10 minutes to work would literally get chocolate mousse in their crankcase from the condensation formed in less than 1000 miles of driving (could be a month or less!!!)
That's about the only positive to a higher temperature thermostat, and that's why they go in mine during the winter for the 'short drive' cars. Anything I drive for an hour at a burst keeps the 160 thermostat.
)
Foaming the rocker panels
in S30 Series - 240z, 260z, 280z
Posted
One thing that should be noted was that on 'Works' cars, the panel thickness was increased in critical areas to help with the issues aarc240 is mentioning. The Monte Carlo Rally Cars were 'not' your typical off the shelf 240. They had special panels throughout the construction, which differed from the SCCA Practice in the USA of buying a car off the showroom floor and running it that weekend.
Those "Works Rally" 240's were the Japanese Equivalent of the 60's NASCAR chassis built at the factory and shipped directly to the teams competing. Yeah, it was a "Stock" car...
I've got this bridge in Brooklyn up for sale as well!