Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
You should have come to Spa in September...not only was it my birthday and we were testing Belgin Beers, there was a yellow Z from the UK and a grey Z from Denmark tearing up the track. The yellow Z was running in the masters series and was running times comparable to the GT350 Shelby Mustangs (2:55's!) Miroux was not there from Belgium this year. Perhaps he got nervous when we laughed as he insisted his F54 block was a 2.4 liter. Curiously they started keeping their paddock door shut after our chance encounter...
Though not one is a 2+2... But rest easy, we keep up the 2+2 reputation by making land speed records with our 76 2+2 at Bonneville and El Mirage. We go again this weekend (I so hope I'm home for ONE event this season!)
Cheers!
-
That other post was corrected just now.
As I have posted there, methinks Mr. C is mistaken. 280Z fuel tank has 15mm, 12mm, 8mm, & 6mm fittings on it for Vapor Recovery/Transfer, Fuel Pump Feed, Fuel Return, and small high point vent lines respectively. These sizes roughly convert to 5/8", 7/16", 5/16", & 1/4" fuel tubing. I can't believe nobody else noticed that.
The hard lines in the chassis are 5/16" (8mm) and 1/4" (6mm) for feed / return to the engine and EVAP line respectively.
LETS ALL BE CLEAR HE IS LOOKING FOR TANK SIZES---I think that is the confusion point.
The 260Z tank has the same vapor line sizes, but Feed to pump is 8mm, return is 8mm (5/16"), and the EVAP (Charcoal Cannister) line is 6mm (1/4")
The 240Z tank has the same vapor/EVAP line size, but feed to the pump is 8mm, and the return is 4mm (5/16" and 3/16" respectively)
Usually the common practice is to go oversize on flexible lines, so for an 8mm line (5/16") using a -6 line (3/8") would be acceptable as a -4 line (1/4") would hinder the flow from the hard line because it's of a smaller diameter. On fuel feed to a pump, the LAST thing you want is a restricted line, so I'd say from the tank put a -8 line, and then adapt at the pump to whatever it calls for, a -6 line would be quite a bit smaller than the current 12mm (7/16") line present.
And anybody who has ever tried fitting plain jane 3/8" fuel tubing over the snout of that tank orifice, or the stock Bosch EFI pump in the EFI cars knows....it's not an easy fit!
These line sizes have to be somewhere in some Nissan Service Manual for replacement references, I'm sure.
As Mr. C says, the -6 works fine on the 5/16" hard line on the chassis.
-
Methinks Mr. C is incorrect. The chassis fuel lines are 8mm. The fuel feed to pump is 12mm (7/16") on a 280Z tank, and the return is 8mm (5/16").
The lines on a 240 and 260Z are 8mm, with an 8mm return on a 260Z, and a 4mm return on a 240Z (5/16, 3/16)
Vent lines on ALL 240,260, 280Z's are 6mm (1/4")---using the vent line as your return has worked for many EFI conversions in 240Z Chassis, the dinky 3/16" line won't flow right at idle (full bypass).
-
I did what John suggested but ran mine up higher in the C Pillar and looped it up there, with a small K&N filter on the end to keep bees and leaf-cutter beetles out (don't ask...) With it that high, I have always been able to see it coming up the filler neck before it got to a point where it dumped out the vent.
Connection to the EVAP cannister is possible for the same advantages, plus you recover the VOC's...but that only works if you leave the vacuum line from the EVAP to the intake manifold so it purges when you start up.
-
Welllllll one on that list is still selling the same profile Jon, why don't you call them and ask if it's the case. I'm sure you will get a resounding "no"...
I am not here to sully someone's reputation, but I know better than to make generalizations, and your list contains someone who is to my CURRENT knowledge engaged <EDIT>(IS ENGAGING)<EDIT> in EXACTLY what I said was happening.
And I'm leaving it at that.
BTW, it's YOUR characterization that they are theiving morons. I simply stated that this is deriguer, and that in industry EVERYBODY SEALS EVERYBODY ELSES IDEAS (if they are good ideas and WORK, why do the legwork add cost to get the same result?) I didn't make a value judgement other than to say people seem to thinkg it's bad when China does it, but when American companies do it (as long as we don't know about it or deny it happens) then it's O.K.
I called nobody a moron---you did that. Perhaps that is your thought on them. I simply said the market realities in a market driven economic system is that if you can rip off a design (even if it is wrong) and it WORKS then marketing will push to adopt it without further refinement.
Are you so obtuse to think I am calling Ron Iskendarian a thieving moron? GO READ MY POST: Ron admitted where they got their original profile. He admitted it was market based 'get into the segment' logic that drove it. That it was close to 10 years and EXTERNAL MARKET FORCES that had him re-evaluate their position on the cam profiles.
And it was Ron that expressed SHOCK that competitive cams (as of this past year) were STILL running their original BMW-Based L-Cam Profiles. He ASSUMED anybody else in the business would have re-evaluated the grinds simply as a matter of course. APPARENTLY NOT.
Don't put words in my mouth, they are a transferrence of your own prejudices and inferences. I don't know why you have such a problem with believing market realities. It's been my experience if something works, there is GREAT resistance to changing it, especially on a theoretical argument. This does not make someone a moron. It makes someone a slave of the business and market situation they are in, nothing more.
I reiterate my previous comment about misstating what I say. You only make it more clear this is the case now.
-
My boost threshold for 17psi was before 2000rpms. Light cruise on the highway would give me 3 psi at even very little throttle input (light flywheel). If I punched it in 5th gear at 50mph I would get full boost instantly half throttle was full boost territory...been a while since that was on there but somewhere around 30% or above would get me full boost at highway speeds. I didn't like the 3.36 because I would seriously be lugging the engine at 40-45mph in 5th gear and could make full boost then as well. The cam came on like a stocker at 3000and would start actually pulling harder then...like a much larger n/a motor with a cam. For a car with a five speed it made driving pretty easy--like a V8, just mash the pedal to pass someone, no downshift, no fuss. "Squirt and Move" was what I called it. All that and still getting 17mpg in daily driving....though I could get 5mpg as well!
With a modified turbine outlet and the newer technology exhaust wheels, I'm thinking it would breathe even better now and not suffer as much from backpressure in the manifold. I never measured it, but given that the modified T-3 0.63 AR hotside on JeffP's engine was generating equal backpressure as intake boost at 7000rpms I'm thinking that a 0.48 AR hotside would be surprising if dialed in correctly.
I'm thinking this is the way I'm going on the red 2+2 for my wife. Should make a good setup and with a small cam and unported head should be a nice daily driver.
-
bj makes a good point, sounds like the compromise I would come to... Don't bury them for parts and labor, but don't pay for work that isn't spec.---something like an internal burdened rate for labor actual hours rounded down appropriately, but not their full shop charge. They gotta pay the guy that did it, and likely he wasn't the one who designed it in the first place. No compensation for removal per se...but cleaning up where it was on the pan, etc maybe.
Always hard to do this to a shop that does such nice work, but building a car is not a charity event! (welll.....)
-
Neither did mine.
It was 'what is your point'?
As usual, no response to the hard questions.
-
"I've conclusively proven you wrong about cam asymmetry."
Have you now? I think Tim has addressed your vague webreposting of contradictory information well enough that I don't have to revisit it. When all else fails, change the definition of the question or answer the question nobody asked. I knew it before I clicked on it.
Thanks for that list, I have to add Web Cams so that makes four. Their shop is about 3-5 miles from the house, but I deal with them more on VW cams. Though now I will have to go an ask Mr. Weber about some interaction between the species...
This should prove enlightening. I'd never even considered WebCam for my L-Grinds. It would save gas not having to drive down to have a chat with Ron and Ed. I should probably stay closer to home, my freeway exposure is less then.
Though I've talked with the Schneider boys, I don't really 'know' anybody there, so they are discounted off my list. I'll work on that.
Is the sole intent of your post to expose my unfamiliarity of other cam grinders Jon? Is that your big expose here? Because I stated that "I only know of two" (which now may be three, since I never asked the Webers about their cam line for the L-Series) grinding assymetric profiles (and not the damn cam lobe profile, which is NOT what was referenced originally and what you went off on your tangent about...) which was quickly appended to "O.K. three then" (And maybe now by proxy four[/b]...)
Is it YOUR contention that EVERY manufacturer on this 'comprehensive list from memory' is the only ones making L-Cams? Where's Isky on that list? That they have the means is somehow an indication that they are actually applying it to existing designs? You've confirmed this personally...right? You wouldn't be reposting mere internet 'proof' as you seem wont to do.
As freakin' TERRIBLE as my offense was for not knowing from my memory, and personal experience I would think leaving Isky off such a list FAR more egregious. Obviously they make cams. The produce cams for the L-Engine. But because they haven't bought this equipment (have they---they aren't on the list, so they musn't be good, they don't have the latest technology to apply...)
And is it your contention that EVERY manufacturer on that listing is making assymetric cams for the L---in valve action, not merely lob profile?
Like I said...sometimes I wonder what your purpose is posting this swarf. It has no point sometimes. What exactly is the offense here, not knowing the capabilities of each and every cam manufacturer on the face of the planet? Of only making recommendations to people based on reputable people I have dealt with for an extended period and who make good product?
WOAH! GUILTY!
You win again Jon, irrefutable logic as usual.
Oh, and with the "obvious" availability of cam software (as I think is the point of your last post) and all this whatever-it-was you posted about...what does that make the manufacturers who have not updated their profiles from when they originally stole them from Isky? What does that say about their application of technology to existing product line? Does that support your 'I would assume' stance...
Or does it support a 'Lowest Common Denominator' stance?
The SR71 was designed by sliderule. Got something faster? A sliderule got us to the moon. Just because someone has the means doesn't mean they use it in every case. Just because someone doesn't have the latest and greatest software and computer manufacturing capabilities, doesn't make them bad, wrong, or inferior. If they know how to operate what they got, I'll take a 65 year old with a sliderule redesigning something he has worked with successfully for 45 years every day...to some kid on a computer guessing by FEA as to what the computer says will be the next great ticket. I see it too much in my line of work.
-
didier,
It was a linear thought, in response to Braap's reply... finding humour in my statement about if only I had explained it was the middle restrictor, everybody and their brother could/would come on here and argue about it. Even now I take pains on this particular issue (oil restriction hole) to point out this incident and that it is NOT me making the statment, but a direct quotation from the guy who wrote the book and who everybody is referencing and confused about.
It kind of cuts down on the argument fog. In some cases. In others they will still argue. In those cases I am more and more just leaving them belive what they want and moving on. Ignorance is like an infection. Once you get it, you foster it I guess. I am content to keep my knowledge to myself. Sharing is nice, but I'm not going to beat myself up just to share information I get firsthand from very knowledgable people. You can either take my statement, or discount it.
This particular instance was the first time that I had an opportunity to be the FIRST guy to respond and directed someone to the source instead of ignorantly posting an answer and then arguing the counterpoints (or it was in response to several GUESSES posted or rationalized, and I got fed up and said "instead of guessing call the dude"--and then provided rudimentary contact information such as where the guy worked currently.) Some people's guesses were wrong. But how can they argue, it came from the guy himself. Somehow this shuts people down. I'll use it more in the future.
Braap saw it as humorous, which is the manner in which it was intended. And my reply was sort of a reply to his text-based chuckling. An afterthought commentary, if you will.
Now for my terrible French writing
Comprende voux, mon ami?
Oh, and didier, to directly answer your last post:
"Both"
-
I refer to it as "Mortensen-proofing" a post.
Seems I have to do that more and more these days. Or simply keep it to myself. I'm fine with that, I don't need to argue about it.
<Edit> Not to imply in any way any links between any section of a prior post, or paragrapghs within a previous post, sentences within a post, or even trains of thought within a post and this post whatoever, your mileage may vary depending on driving conditions and many other factors including but not limited to day of the week, lunar cycle, tides, astrological alignment, phase rotational EMF contamination, ELF transmission interference, amalgam fillings, or consequential similarities to actual persons living or dead.<Edit>
-
Concentrate on that which doesn't blow your argument out of the water? Interesting that's your only comment now...
I can delete those portions if that makes you feel better John, but they both bring out two salient points to your ad hominems about my comments from earlier. What, is this a goose-gander situation?
I mean, facts of the matter are that many cam manufacturers simply rip off profiles. Isky did it, and admits it. And they also went back to revisit the design when it became obvious they needed to. And the evidence remains clear today that many other cam manufacturers HAVE NOT done this.
Which directly addresses your sarcastic comment about assuming other manufacturers being competent enough chack what their designs do on an engineering level. Well perhaps THEY HAVEN'T...the evidence exists that some still have the SAME grinds they stole back in the 70's. Perhaps it's simply as Ron said: "they make power I guess, but they aren't right"---so their criteria may simply be limited to functionality, defined as power production. For many people that is all that matters.
Never ASSUME total competence from a guy simply because he has a shingle hung out. Limited competence, or performance is one thing, engineering backed knowledge of what is going on is something totally different. I limited my comments to what I have actually seen in my own investigations, or gained from discussions directly with people who design and manufacture the product, not off some website. From what I have seen, Ron's assessment seemed valid, so that is probably a bit more indicative of the state of the manufacturing environment regarding camshafts. I only know people from three manufacturers, Erson, Crane and Isky, perhaps you know more and have more insight than I do...I don't know. But from what I've seen and discussed over the past 15 or so years I belive my statements to be based on fatual conversations and evidence from my own investigations and not supposition and wild-arse guessing based on assumptions.
The last point in your quote punctuates that: Finding a competent engineer to actually start something from scratch is exceedingly difficult. To assume simple human nature to imitate is not applicable or done in something as complex as camshaft design seems foolish to me, it's often been said that China rips off things...but they are simply human and cam manufacturers in the USA are the same humans (as far as I know) and that they would have the same tendencies to 'save work'.
That it addresses things salient to the discussion is a separate, additional benefit.
-
I was going to mention the quench issue, but since it was in another current thread, left it out. I tend to agree, I'd save the head for another application where it can be best taken advantage of all aroudn.
-
I dunno, in the pushrod realm, and assymetric cam was quite a revolutionary thing.
To discuss what a cam manufacturer does or doesn't do when you aren't one seems arrogant and presumptious, IMO.
Ron seemed straightforward about their R&D: "We copied a BMW profile just to have something to offer initially. It's amazing to see our profiles from back then directly copied on other people's cams, even to this day! They make power I guess, but they aren't right. When we were working with Electromotive ten years later, Nissan wouldn't give us ANY information, so we had to shadow-profile their stock cams and that's when we realized they were doing things quite a bit different from what BMW did, the profile was all wrong for the Nissan Engine and I had to totally re-engineer the ramps to get an assymetric valve action. From that, we changed everything we did on the L-Cams."
Like I said before: Plenty of IMMITATORS, but few INNOVATORS. If it runs and makes power, and you can just rip it off from someone else, why ENGINEER it? Yeah, the Chinese are the only ones that do that, right? It would NEVER happen in the USA with something as complex as a camshaft...
-
The big question is did you make the seat fore-aft adjustable? That can cause fittment issues. I cut the seat supports out altogether, using some thicker plate to move the load around rather than simply bolting through the flat floorboards.
We ran like that for years, until the sanctioning body required us to 'tie the seat into the roll structure and not the unitbody'---meaning we had to run a 1 3/8" loop under the seat and tie it to the door bars and roll hoop, braces, etc. That took away our adjustable seat mechanisim (multiple drivers)---so two guys now run the car as a driver, instead of three.
I bought an S130 that I would fit into...
-
Early Dual Carb L20A Cam, JDM T-3 0.48 Hotside A/R, TO4E-50 Trim Compressor, Triple 44 Mikuini Blowthrough with knockoff HKS box...
People would get in the car telling me how they 'don't like turbos because they don't have linear power delivery and don't rev like an N/A' and when I launched at 3000 clutch dump to a modulated 17psi boost at 1700rpms and up they would keep asking "This is Turbocharged? This is Turbocharged? This is Turbocharged?"
Dyno operator who smoked my clutch got it to 60mph in 4th gear (3.36 rear gear, you do the math!) on a Clayton In-Ground Dyno, punched the load button when he floored it and POOFED my clutch. "I never seen a turbo come on that hard before, I was expecting to pull to 3500, 4000 before it made boost like that!" (0-17psi in the blink of an eye!)
"I liked the low-end torque, too!"
And with that L20A cam, it would zing like a shortie stroke N/A Stocker to 7000 no problem. Power was good to 6500. It really surprised some people! Especially new Z32TT owners looking for their 'first kill' with their hot new car right off the lot!
-
Penetrant Inspect the ring lands, that's detonation damage there.
If penetrant reveals no cracks, and all measurements are within specification doing a low-cost refresh would likely be O.K.
-
This is correct, the question was posed, and the inquisitive person was directed (by me) to contact Frank Honsoweitz and ask the question directly to "the man who wrote the book"...mainly because if I said the answer, there would be endless discussion and argument 'because it's hear-say and I don't believe it just because you say so' and it would be an open-ended typical internet confusing answer that's really not an answer because of all the arguing and bickering by 'question everything' generation loosers.
So Frank himself stated the hole to be enlarged was ONLY the one in the middle of the block NOT THE ONE UP FRONT!
And that ain't from me, it ain't hear-say, it's from the man who wrote the book on How to Modify your Datsun L-Engine!
-
RoRo to England or the Continent is around $1000 one-way.
The DRIVE to Milan. Flying into Malpensa is a drag, MUCH better to drive over from the French side, which allows you the option to go through Germany and get acclimated to the driving styles there.
I was heading to Andorra, and got paged to go back to Valencia...halfway up the mountian. "I rushed back post-haste!"
BMW 320... You know they do 255kph+? -
"I'm still waiting for you to give me some chinese high quality brand names that I can start buying tools from by the way."
King Tony
-
I'm L-Specific...
-
"NOBODY else but Sunbelt would have thought "Hey, that's a pretty good idea! Let's do THAT!" in the intervening 40 years. "
Never said that, sometimes your attitude is...poor.
That's the most charitable I can be at this point.
Never said it, you're just plain being an ass misstating it like that.
-
What the "Jap" is speaking about is explaining the three things that you do to inicrease the steering angle in regards to the rack and tie rods.
1)You get more steering angle with the washers initially by allowing a lengthened rack movement.
2) By shortening the tie rod, with the increased turnability of the rack (it now goes slightly MORE turns from center after the spacer is in there -- they show this at the end of the video) BTW, it allows slightly more rotation of the wheel to get it 'straighter' out of the rack.
This goes hand-in-hand with is altering the knuckle stop on the lower suspension arm to allow more angle to be advantageously used with the shorter tie rod with spacers installed is used, in conjunction with the spacer the diagram is telling you to make sure not to clearance too much or you can go over-center and LOCK the wheel in place under load! He's saying to get it 'in line' but make sure it can't go further! When the steering unloads it's possible the tie rod could 'kick' back out suddenly and restore control to the driver... or not. Not good with steering components. It's like laying over those bicycle wheels on the front end of a dragster---same sort of thing.
3)Last mod is to use heim joints to accommodate the additional angle on the steering tie rods. They are diagramming the normal tie rod would be put into a bind due to the movement of the lower portion of the macpherson strut's steering knuckle.
Last thing they show is clearancing the lower control arm and various chassis components so there is no conflict at full compression or during track use. Because the wheel turns more now, there may be rubbing issues that have to be addressed and clearanced.
Maybe I speak enough 'jap' to figure that video out.
-
It's not a ZX-R wing, since the ZX-R didn't have a rear wiper for one thing...
Braided fuel lines
in Fuel Delivery
Posted · Edited by Tony D
That's what I thought...
Go get that tank John, it's a 7/16" feed for the Bosch Pump. You play hell fitting a 3/8" line on it, 7/16" line (12mm) fits like its made for it...probably 'cause it is!
From the other post, and the PM's floating out there:
The hard lines in the chassis are 5/16" (8mm) for feed and return to the engine respectively, and 6mm (1/4") for the vapor or EVAP line.
The 280Z fuel tank has 15mm, 12mm, 8mm, & 6mm fittings on it for Vapor Recovery/Transfer, Fuel Pump Feed & Fuel Return, vapor accumulation/EVAP cannister and small high point vent lines respectively. These sizes roughly convert to 5/8", 7/16", 5/16", & 1/4" fuel tubing.
The 260Z tank has the same vapor line sizes as well as vapor/EVAP, but Feed to pump is 8mm, and return to the tank is 8mm (5/16") FUEL FEED TO PUMP IS THE FITTING CLOSEST TO THE FILLER NECK (do not swap them or you run out of gas at 1/2 tank! Don't even ask!
)
The 240Z tank has the same vapor/EVAP line sizes, but feed to the pump is 8mm, and the return is 4mm (5/16" and 3/16" respectively)
The tanks from 69 to 6/76 (regular fuel non-restrictor neck fill fittings) all have the same fuel fill size spigot, and after that they get smaller. Fairlady Z's all have the same gas tank filler spigots as they didn't have a change in fuel tank size and kept a full size spare from day one to the end. I don't know that diameter, nor do I care.