Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
I don't know how many cams and heads I've seen ruined by idiots putting RTV on the head gasket...
That silicone likes to break off and plug orifices. Swarf? That's what you get when you rev the engine like a dummy while the engine is cold, and you succeed in lifting the oil filter bypass valve and everything being sucked up from the bottom of the sump and pumping it up topside to wreak havoc some time later.
I have opened compressors with machining chips that fluttered in the oil system and caused vibration problems for literally 20 years until I start looking REALLY REALLY closely, and go 'hey, give me some welding rod, let me stick it in here, something doesn't look right with this spray pattern - poke poke - WOW lookie there!'
-
"replaceable" and "non-replaceable" comes with or without snap rings for retention.
As the linked post shows, there is a P/N for 'non replaceable' joints.
Generally 'replaceable' joints have bolted in caps, in some cases caps retained with snap rings or clips.
If you look at the Datsun "non-replaceable" joints, they have pressed-in clips---like a washer or metal deformation called 'staking'. You push it in, and it is spring steel so it digs in on the way out or simply grind away the stakes.
You can not press these joints out with that retainer/stakes in place. Simply heating it a bit softens the spring to the point that you can pry it in on itself and pop it out---for stakes you grind. You can then press from the opposite side and remove that bearing cap out that side. In some cases the guys will keep on pushing so the opposite side spring retainer will come out the bottom of the bore. With a slight rotation, that cap is now off and you can usually remove one of the yokes at that point. Then repeat the process.
The replacement joint comes with one of several different retention methods, but usually the good old cheap spring retainer works or you simply re-stake after install... Sometimes the aftermarket joints actually have clips on oversized caps which makes future replacement no harder than a regular replacement on a 'traditional replaceable' diriveshaft! (WATCH FOR THESE IN JUNKYARDS! Even if they are shot, it saves you work!) Some OEM's use a plastic locking compound and you have to heat and melt out the locking ring. Many times these will need simple machine work to take standard retention clips...but I digress.
This isn't rocket science, if you can do replaceable joints, chances are you have the skills to do non-replaceable ones on a Datsun. You may not have all the tools, but it doesn't take much---either a 6" vice, or Arbor/Hydraulic press. Maybe a torch and screwdriver. Appropriate pushing stock (a deep well socket or cut to length tubing works.
This post has photos and you can follow it pretty well and uses the ones with clips spoken of above....:
http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=517657
The joint in question is on a LOT of Japanese cars (like I said, common supplier of components...)
To reprise my FIRST post on this subject:
"Replace the U-Joints!"
A google search on "non-replaceable u-joints" shows all sorts of stuff (Actually, the first hit that shows up is the link I posted.) for the 240sx, ZX's, RX7's including the information on the Rockford Joint.... But a search on "irreplaceable u-joints"...
One means you can't replace them.
The other means the can't be replaced.
There IS a difference. This is what happens when people translate Japanese to English (Chinese the same thing...)
This is what is referred to in Japan as 'The Same, But Different'---I have spoken of it before. We have it in this case, only in English!
-
Yeah, some people just don't understand...
That was like JC telling me to shut up on the 'reduced engine friction' explanation on 'wrong rod bearings?' post recently. What is not obvious to some, may be a not so well-guarded and in fact 'public domain' fix.
It's like this next sentence, which is likely to be a revelation to Flatblack after his last post:
Uh, dude, you realize NISSAN and SUBARU both source Fuji Heavy Industry parts for the driveline?
It's kind of like finding R180 Subaru Differentials in Datsuns. They aren't "NISSAN" or "SUBARU" parts, they are "FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRY" parts sold to each company. The supplier does the engineering and specification compliance in the JDM, and it's VERY common to have the same part on many different marques.
Saginaw Power Steering Columns: GM....Jaguar...who else domestically? Hmmmmmm...
"Non Replaceable" is indeed a bullshite comment.
As I said in my FIRST response to the ORGINAL POST:
"Replace the U-Joints"
That you revealed HOW you replace the U-Joints...
-
There is a basic disconnect with reality of OEM production methods and desires being displayed, and that's a shame.
I can see shedding if it continues down this path.
OEM's as JC has mentioned have made TREMENDOUS strides towards spectacular specific output while at the same time decreasing emissions to a remarkable level. Some of the engines would have been considered 'Formula Racing' applicable with the outputs now being put forth only 40 years ago.
And the Ford Eco-Boost...MAN!
As I have said, this technology is simply 40 years too late to be applicable to the engines of today. It's biggest possible application was for small engines...unfortunately (or fortunately for the planet) even they now are being brought under emissions regulations...mostly due to the fact that the mobile emissions sources (automotive engine emissions) have decreased so much.
My prospect for this technology is that they will never see implementation in an emissions controlled mass-produced OEM engine simply because of the emissions penalty they impart. We have moved beyond 'power at all emissions cost' mentality at the OEM level. If this is to make hay or gain notoriety, it will be in hobby applications where emissions are not monitored strictly, and where power at any cost may make some people jump at the chance.
If it was reliable power, I would expect we would see implementation in an F1 team someplace...
Willie Essing was a forklift hydraulic mechanic with an idea. He implemented it and had very spectacular results. Ferrari flew him to Maranello, tested his theories and implementation, had him sign a non-disclosure and licensed his technology.
And for them it represented MAYBE a 3% advantage in power through hydraulic manipulation of fuel rail pressures (as I understand it, I am not privy to the specific details...)
Long and short of it, if the technology being proffered was REALLY worth 20% at almost ANY point...I would expect to see Mr. Singh with a couple of hot umbrella ladies of nebulous asian extraction at some circuits around Europe when the circus came to town. Willie got a plane ticket, and a big check for 3%...for 20% this guy would be a God.
And I think that was the point of John's original post regarding OEM's as well. I don't see it in OEM's (other than B&S's testing), and in a "Power at all costs, emissions be damned" application like F1....I'm not seeing it either!
So is it Racism? What? Why haven't the big dogs embraced this technology?
Chances are they did testing and found...well... as JC said, standard combustion chamber evolution has evolved to such an extent that it isn't as impressive, and may well indeed hinder the CC designs of today.
On an F-Head from the 40's---great gains. But again, I don't see the guys in XO Class at Bonneville running the technology, but I'll make sure to ask about it at the next race. I'm not a flathead guy, but this technology is out there in the public domain, and if it really works well on Flatheads, the Bonneville guys would use it!
-
Have you turned the mixture adjusting screws down from "Top Stop" yet?
-
x2 - I've rebuilt both sides of at least three halfshafts on my 78s. Haven't looked into the driveshaft u-joint, but my Subaru has "non-replaceable u-joints" that I had replaced by a local driveshaft shop. I just converted to a different type with the same dimensions.
Blabbermouth!
I mean if one set of U-Joints has four pressed-in caps on a trunnion, then getting another press in 4-cap trunnion...all you need is some grease, a press, and patience.
Nissan didn't sell replacements, that doesn't mean replacements aren't available...
-
Uh, because the market domestically from 1969 to 1978 was around 78,000 cars...
Hell, they sold more 260Z's in the USA alone in 1974 than all of the Japan Production Fairlady Z's.
So my bet is, some sharp marketing guy got with some sharp engineering guy and made up a header that fit BOTH LHD and RHD cars so they only had to make ONE to sell all over the world.
First generation "Trust/Greddy" was a copy of the first generation Nismo header (with the dual 50mm outlet three-bolt flange) and they fit LHD and RHD cars alike.
It didn't come up until recirc ball in the ZX's that headers had to be specifically made to accomodate an LHD car, up to that point most interchanged completely.
There were som notable exceptions, the Fujitsubo on my 71 Fairlady...no way it fits on a LHD car... But that was pretty application-specific. Same goes for some of the Turbo Manifolds (especially the twins)...
-
Ok Tony, got the Part number you posted, price checked. #11044-R1005 Headgasket if availabe is $45-50 bucks.
This is what I paid for my headgasket.
79-81 L28 #P7900 is $50-55 if available
81 on up #P7911 is $50-55 if available
So you're telling me, since I JUST picked three of them up (so I know they are available) that your source can get them for $45-50....
As I said, I'll take five plus shipping. PM me the contact information for your Nissan Dealer...
-
rejracer-You really are missing the point of my post regarding Briggs and Stratton. They worked directly with the man on testing for their application, and it returned exactly the results spoken of---you are postulating perhaps that the inventor and the full resources of Briggs & Stratton Engineering/R&D somehow screwed the pooch during their testing?
Considerable money was expended in their application. They were looking for an emissions reduction and they didn't get it.
And facts of todays' world are that OEM's are concerned about emissions. Sommender Singh simply was born 100 years too late for most of the world for his invention to be 'revolutionary AND change the face of automotive engine design'...
It may be revolutionary, but the drawbacks for an OEM are far to great to adopt it.
Home Hobby Reworkers? Sure, you can probably get something. But make no mistake your emissions will suffer. Does that matter? To some it will, to others it won't.
If anyplace would have adopted it, B&S would have, they still use side valve engines. But are moving away from them for emissions reasons as well.
-
New Nissan Master-Vac (Bendix) over the counter in Japan was 32,800 yen for the 240 unit, and slightly less for the later 260/280 unit.
-
The whine is from the ring and pinion, not the ATB unit...it will go 'CLUNK!' when transferring torque when it starts to get sloppy...
-
That would be because the 'axles' or 'half shafts' are called 'driveshafts' in Nissanspeak...
A prop shaft for a 280 with replaceable Spicer 1310 (?) compatible trunnions runs under $200 in steel or moly. At least mine did for the 510 wagon, and it was way longer than the Z, and was 3"!
Aluminum is under $300.
-
Seriously Burton, I wouldn't use the LD28 or LD28T (or for that matter the RD28!)
The Truck (Navara in the world market) has both a 2.7 and 3.0 turbodiesel four that makes whopping power with just chips and turbo/intercooler upgrade. I don't know if you can swap diesels into a car that didn't come with them factory...that would take a Maxima I guess, but 'swap'... I got to buy a rule book next Sunday when I go up to ElMirage. First outing on the new engine. Andy's putting it together in the garage now, talked with him on the phone for a while last night discussing our cooling mods from Jeff's car.
There are some cool 1.4L turbodiesel Skodas available CHEAP in europe. I think a small-bore turbodiesel would be a hoot to run. I've considered approaching Per-Dua in Malaysia about a car---they have N/A and Turbo versions with 650, 850, and 1000cc cars about the size of the old Honda S600. Not a lot of competition in those small bore classes, and the speeds lead to cheaper prep. I think it would be a good way to get 'The Boy' into the sport, as well as seeing a 300+# dude rolling out of the car during the evacuation test and rolling around in the dirt would probably be fun as well---good way to 'break in and christen' the new firesuit!
What's going on with Maxton, I hear they're shutting it down and the fight is on...
I wonder why nobody has approached the old Wurtsmith AFB in N.E. Michigan, those runways are used by Detroit for top speed tests, they have one active runway for jet maintenance, but no commercial traffic. You could take the ferry across to Traverse City and be there in two hours drive! Plus I have a cottage on Lake Huron 13 miles from the runway...so that would be a perfect excuse to attend!
-
Tony D, Now don't tell us you don't have any connections with Nissan parts dealerships. $120.00 for a zx headgasket Wow. I got a nissan one a few months ago for 40 or 45 bucks, when I blew mine on my 83 n/a turbo engine. I am tech at a dealership but figured you could get the same discount.
You are putting words in my mouth, go back and read what I posted and see if what I'm saying now is not 100% true!
If your local Dealership can get L Engine Head Gasket NISSAN P/N: 11044-R1005 for "$40 or $45" then you give me their phone number for the parts desk, and I'll place an order for 5 now, plus shipping costs.
Discount? The ASKING price was $133, and I STILL got them for $120. Put your money where your mouth is, give me YOUR best price on that part number, dude. Go ahead, make that call, and tell me what kind of price I got, discounted or not...
-
You guys may want to go to Burns Stainless and check out their Header Fabrication article.
Traditionally you start at the head, and tack weld to the outlet flange, and then stitch/weld the tubes in a manner so as to minimize warpage. But generally having a set start and end point rigidly set allows you to go from one end to the other tacking and then welding.
I would NOT recommend starting at the collector and going backwards, or 'working from both ends to the middle'!
I don't even want to relate why I feel so strongly on that last point, but let's just say you don't want to end up like a couple of my past endeavors!
-
If they are that tight, they are the wrong size! And if you 'strip the knurls' there is something else wrong like an oversized hub hole requiring an oversized stud knurl (they do make those!) Even PARTIAL engagement of the knurl should be MORE than enough to pull the thread in by hand using a beam-indicating torque wrench. Initial engagement for me has always been done with fingers or at most a bent-nose pliers till the knurl starts. There should be no torsional transmission if the threads are clean and clear on the stud and nut (and I would think with a NEW STUD this would be the case, and that you aren't using gnarly lug nuts!) If the torsional requirement to tighten the nut is that high...SOMETHING IS WRONG!
I can't count how many different makes and models I've done that on, you should be NOWHERE NEAR 'yield'!
Matter of fact a lot of wheel stud and lugnut torques are under review in the UK right now because of 'right side stud breakage'---seems it's very common for one side to break and not the other. Failure analysis reveals that the sliding of the wheel under the lug nut due to insufficient torque during makeup of the wheel/hub assembly leads to LOOSENING of the nuts (automatically!) and it's being reviewed now to require either higher torques, more frequent re-inspection intervals, or other solutions.
Ideally lug nuts are around 75-80% of yield at a proper unlubricated conical seat juncture. If you read my webpage, I was putting them on backwards against rusty washers to pull them up---almost 75% of the 'torque' you get on your wrench is sliding friction under the head of the bolt, 15% is friction from the threads, and only 10% of the torque applied is actually available for tensile application to the stud assembly. In my example, likely this is even lower due to extremely high under-head friction (using the flat against a washer opposed to the conical side against a clean conical seat)...meaning that it's likely maybe only HALF the torque (maybe 5%) is available for tensile loading. (This also goes towards 'high torsional requirement' listed above, if you actually tighten a nut with that much thread friction, you are asking for a broken stud or bolt as the torque you read at seat will be the wrong mix--you will reach 'recommended' torque well before it should be because the 15% expected on the threads is higher, and therefore results in a lower tensile application as the head will still be at 75% of registered torque...so the only way the equation works is the tensile portion is lessened, and loose bolts break!)
This should be FAR below any point anywhere near yield point!
Of far more concern is people greasing threads, and conical seats and then turning their lug nuts to specified torques. You want a way to pull a stud over yield point? THAT will do it quicker than anything else!
Backwards with full nut head against even polished washers is FAR more friction than conical on seat...I have yet to have one pull 'full up' before reaching anywhere near 75% of recommended torque.
And just to add this: Show me a flat-rate or commission mechanic who removes the hub and presses them in or out! Not to say that is not a 'proper' method to do it. But taking a beam indicating torque wrench and pulling them in with a reversed nut and some washers won't have ill effect on the studs.
Blindly hammering them on with a reversed nut and an impact gun? I'm with you against that... but not as I described on the web page!
-
Heat is tolerable, it's just what amount of pressure you use to combat vapor formation. And as heat rises, vapor pressure falls.
Check out those power steering coolers if you are an inveterate 1/4 tank-er!
The heat-sink properties of a full fuel tank are amazing.
Now....about that coil from the reefer system coiled in the bottom of the tank...
(The Winter Rally Car 240's ran a loop of tubing through the fuel as a differential cooler! Now with triple carbs running you think icing might be a problem? Not if your fuel tank was running 120F fuel up front on a 20 degree day!)
-
My JIS Turbo Gasket was a great piece, and far better quality than what I would have expected. It was comparable IMO to an OEM Nissan Gasket (graphoil laminate construction same as Nissan's, not impregnated paper with RTV rings on it!)
You need to make sure you have the right gasket, period. No matter what brand, or where you order it from.
I haven't particluarly had issues with Fel-Pro, either. But if you order the wrong one, it will do the same thing.
Frankly, for what I paid for the JIS, and the quality of the gasket they delivered, I wouldn't even CONSIDER a Fel Pro.
And considering I just paid nearly $120 EACH for NISSAN OEM (still in the Nissan Packaging, straight over the counter from a Nissan Dealer) Head Gasket and I can't see a SINGLE difference from it laying it side-by-side with the other 3 JIS gaskets I still have left (which I got for $30 each!!!) it makes me wonder where JIS and Nissan are getting them...other than a 'Nissan' logo on the Nissan OEM gasket, they appear IDENTICAL!
And IMO, the Nissan Gasket is by far and away the best gasket for the application when going stock (or for that matter...)
-
"No increase in horsepower or torque at high loads but a slight increase in NOx and CO at higher loads and rpms."
This is what killed it at B&S. They were looking for a magic bullet to forestall adding catalytics to their small engines and the increase in NOx and CO without a corresponding HP Increase...
As much as people want to Poo Pooh a little lawnmower engine, realize they are running at PEAK POWER 100% of the time per their design. This is VERY demanding service. Anybody who is into Junior Dragsters knows what you can get out of a '5HP' B&S engine, the engine is designed to run at peak load and power for as long as possible between overhaul intervals.
This is why the Singh Groove on the face looks spectacular for automotive applications: midrange gains.
But in the end, where emissions are a concern, their pittfals outweigh what they get midrange.
Like I originally stated: this is great technology in developing countries without emissions controls (er...like India, China, all of Africa...) but in the long run it will likely be resigned to the bin of 'was good while it lasted' technology. If he'd been born 100 years earlier, the Singh-Modified Otto Cycle engine would have been revolutionary and sped up hotrodding. Unfortunately the technology has matured, and the demands of EMISSIONS for OEMs make them choose their technologies on a far more stringent set of criteria than they would have in 1940---when this revolution would have had Detroit running wild cutting grooves in their flatheads to keep from converting to OHV's for another 5 years from the possible power gained.
It's all a matter of timing.
Who would laud the invention of The "Turbo Button" on your PC today?
-
Actually depending on the size of your injectors, and if you are batch fired or alternating bank, what indeed may be happening is that due to the RAPID drop of fuel pressure in the header when all your injectors fire, you get 'flash vaporization'... then getting that gasseous fuel out of the rail can be a total beyotch! Jeff didn't have that issue, but he found an accumulator that REALLY kept his fuel pressure steady at idle while those big 720's were banging away at idle. I think the fuel pressure on my precision gauge was dropping from 36 to like 20 when they fired! That's one atmosphere drop...that's enough to precipitate formation of gas pockets in your fuel. This may also be a consideration. You can try to go to 'alternating' to keep the pressure drop less by firing half the injectors each time, or consider putting a pulsation dampner/accumulator onto the fuel rail.
I think JeffP put the information on the one he found on his Anglefire website.
I think you're on the right track, but it's not IAT that is your problem, it's either solely your fuel temperature rising, or that combining with a pressure drop during injector firing events.
-
Your fuel is changing states in the rail, you need to run a return line, and make SURE you aren't going under load on the roadway with less than 1/4 tank of fuel.
JeffP was warned about this on the dyno by yours truly. It's in the archives here as well. The density change of the FUEL is what is killing you. Air correction density is not that bad, but the fuel BTU content that changes in fuel that is 58F and that is 140+F is PHENOMENAL!
Jeff was experiencing the EXACT same thing because Mr. Cheap-Arse would only put 5 gallons of C16 in the car at any one time. Started out nice and cool on the first run. Second run the car was leaning. THIRD run the car was all over the place! EXACTLY like what you are seeing 17:1 at idle where on first run it was more like 13.8!!! Fuel in the tank went from 60F to 140 in about 20 minutes of idling and two or three passes on the dyno.
If you want a more permanent solution, find one of those small power steering coolers, flush it well, and put it in the airstream of the fender well (well protected from rocks) then run your return line through it. You will be AMAZED how much more consistent your idle AFR's will be after cooling the fuel on the way BACK to the tank! It picks up a LOT of heat in the engine bay, and if you are running a return-less fuel system without a way to monitor fuel temperature and pressure (Like the BOSS EFI Systems do...) you're asking for these kinds of problems.
-
failing shifter boot replacement really helped with the exhaust fumes in my '73....but having said that I'm installing a cat in my car to try and get through emissions testing requirements for collector's plates.
Seriously, I have to ask a question here because this mentality is confounding me: Are the requirements in BC so stringent that they are making you pass MODERN emissions levels to get your 'collector plates'? This is the only eventuality that I would see to require fitment of a catalyst to 'pass emissions'---even in the state of California with notoriously stringent limit levels (a recent example cited: 4% CO in one state, same car in CA was allowed 1.5% CO, 400PPM HC and only 220ppm in CA), you still should pass using the OEM Equipment in the car from time of manufacture.
Does the intellectual exercise involved tell anybody else slapping a cat on a car to pass emissions which uses empirical testing data as the pass-fail criteria smack of band-aid, and denote the logical and quick failure of the installed catalytic device?
Subjective criteria like 'cabin smells' is one thing, but hard testing data... for a 73? This was a car which never had a catalyst, and shouldn't need one to pass. Non-USA Specs for a 73 are HUGE you could drop gasoline on a pan over the exhaust manifold with an eyedropper and have a throttled opening aspirating the vapors and still pass! (Well, that may be an exaggeration...)
Or is this a converted car with a later engine which once was catalyzed and now is only residing in a 73 Chassis?
-
Thin tubing welded distorts and moves flanges John?
Say it isn't so!
You will only make the mistake once...
-
Any particular reason for not using the threads to pull them in? In my example I didn't even get to 80ft-lbs and they were pulled all the way up. If you're not exceeding the torque of the road wheel, what's the reason for not doing it?
Higher efficiency cylinder head by grooving?
in Miscellaneous Tech
Posted · Edited by Tony D
GM stole the 'design' of the LT1 cooling system from someone else? Are you SURE about that, as in 1979 GMI (now Kettering Institute) recruiters and student aids discussed with our high school classes GM's reverse-flow experiments with the SBC from the 50's. New engine, lots of tooling investment, and ROI on implementing the advantages of the system they said at the time 'would have to wait until they get around to a totally new design of the SBC, and then they would likely implement it'...
You "heard of a lot of other situations." Right.
As much as I don't like domestics, for myriad reasons, I will give GM credit for extraordinary engineering to get very advanced systems in place for phenomenally low costs. Mechanical ABS? C'mon, that was amazing.
Really I don't know what the point is of your last post...Knowing people in GM design in the 70's, and retirees who worked on the SBC development from the 50's onwards (and who assisted/guided our high school Auto-Shop with it's Reverse-Flowed 6.6 Trans Am...) I'm finding it hard to believe someone 'registered' the design for the LT1 engine when GM knew of the advantages of reverse flow cooling at LEAST as early as 1958. Would you happen to have a patent number for that discovery, as I believe GM patented their discoveries as an improvement over their original design. Corporations have a tendency to do that to protect themselves later on...my bet is someone had a 'patent pending' but not in reality 'registered' it any more than that and GM's lawyers brought that to their attention
But your contention is Singh Grooves will improve the GM LT 1 design?
My contention is likely it will not, and in fact they would likely harm it.
Everything in OEM manufacturing is dictated by economics. But that takes a back seat to federal regulation---you can't make a profit if you don't have certified product to sell. Why did the 460 Ford die and get replaced with the V10 Modular? Would have been FAR cheaper to keep the 460. But the modular V10 has tremendously better emissions performance. GM, on the other hand did what GM always has done and figured out some way to tweak the existing design and eke out another product cycle from the venerable Rat Big Block. Mostly through combustion chamber redesign...didn't see Singh Grooves get implemented there!
If Singh's technology worked, as John C contends, and as you imply, GM or someone would have simply stolen it and used it to their advantage to keep their costs down and existing tooling in place for at least another product cycle. They have good lawyers.
That they didn't, that NOBODY but Briggs and Stratton did any testing that is published tells REAMS about the technology and it's applicability in the REAL WORLD OF TODAY.