Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
What is the downside of 'too much' zinc and phosphorous?
I know it is an issue with current-generation catalytic converters and the 100K mileage requirement for emission compliance with EPA...
But on our cars, what's the practical downside of 'too much'?
Other than phosphorous will combat acids in engines that sit a long time, keeping the TAN lower...that's why is was added to sour gas ICE Prime Movers.
-
I had a regrind break earlier this year...damnit! We suspect a latent failure in the core we used since the cam towers were spot on, no galling, and the head was flat/flat top and bottom. Damnedest thing, Ive seen it happen on warped heads before, and where the cam towers seized for whatever reason... But this didn't have any of the 'normal' signs for something taking the cam out with it...
When was the last time you heard of someone magnafluxing a cam? I will from now on, before putting a $100 Regrind into it!
Damn, it ran well with that cam, too!
-
Anybody seen the conversion kits out there being marketed for E10/20/85?
Appears to be a piggyback controller, additional injector, and an exhaust sensor.
I ran across the advert briefly in a periodical last evening late, and as I recall it was pretty compatible with Ford Products, F150, etc...
I will see if I can scramble it up this evening and repost tomorrow with more details. There was Gibley's Involved, and my memory is hazy of the details so I omit them at this point...
-
LOL!
"Atlas Shrugs!"
I would do that to transport A12 and A15 Engine/Trans assemblies. Having a small engine does have advantages!
My wife would freak when she saw me do that. LOL
No help, but it's funny, I couldn't resist!
-
Could be worse, they could have whined, protested you...then not paid the protest fees and basically bump you out of competition for a year while the competition board determines if The G-Nose was a factory option for any 240Z...
And of course, get the determination two weeks after the last meet of the season...just as your driver gets a job with rotating shifts so there's no way in heck he can make any of the events in 2008.
And to add insult to injury, watch from the sidelines as the bastards that unofficially protested you, and held you up for a year, bump the record on the third meet of 2008 while you have no driver and a car that runs great...
It's all in the degrees... Like JohnC said, you just got to live with it. They protested us because they were upset that we had 17 records in 3.0 Liter class and then downsized our engine to run in 2.0 Liter. It was their way of bumping us out till they got their car sorted and their new killer engine built (which by that point had been 8 years...). I mean, when you are competing against a car running a DOHC COSWORTH engine (capable of over 345hp and 12K rpms), and the owner is upset a DATSUN SOHC has come into his class....c'mon!
You just gotta run with what ya brung. I know I have a LOT of documentation on the factory availability of the G-Nose now...Much to my wife's chagrin (more crap to store aroudn the house---what did you need that for???)
-
Thermopolis...ahhh Thermopolis....
Lost a nose gear wheel there when landing, and grabbed the last Avis Car and drove the rest of the way to Worland with the two pilots...
-
Actually there is an ECU manufacturer out there now that has fuel temperature and fuel pressure sensors incorporated into the system, and it uses a PWM circuit in the ECU to control the system's fuel pump to allow a returnless fuel line setup to 500HP.
Really, if the fuel comes from the tank and does not get heated it should stay cooler overall...longer than if it's recirculating.
But once the thermal mass is heated you can't do anything about it. Nigel is spot-on regarding the rationale behind returnless fuel systems: it keeps EVAP Emissions lower because the heat is not vaporizing the fuel and making the emissions.
These new systems do use a fuel pressure as well as fuel temperature compensation lookup table to trim pulsewidth to keep btu value delivered to the engine constant. Incidentally, this is how many race sanctioning bodies are monitoring horsepower compliance---when you know spec fuel BTU content, and temperature/pressure/pulsewidth you can by remote telemetry monitor the power the competitors are making...and spot rulebreakers.
We are digressing. I'd check to see if boosting the surge tank pressure helps first before we start cooling fuel and going all out in another direction. The easiest way to combat cavitation is to increase suction head---and you can simply do that by pressurizing the inlet to the pump.
Now, making a cooling jacket around your surge tank and packing it with dry ice would pay dividends for shorter track sessions.......
-
Yeeeeah.... Rick, buy a set and let us know if it works out for ya!
LOL
-
Hmmmm, interesting. The first gen Toyota R-G Series cars had 8 blocks, but later in the emissions carburettors they have OA blocks. Weren't the last sets sold out of Northridge all OA blocked carbs? That would support 'max power' for the aftermarket scenario...but that makes a strange dichotomy that they would use those same blocks in emissions laden carburettors on the 40PHH's into the 80's on the 2t and 18R-G motors.
-
1/2" for the balance tube / plenum log should be more than adequate.
Our Bonneville car has like 75KPA vacuum at idle, and a 1/2" pipe manifold with 1/8" taps to each runner gives more than enough vacuum for the brake function as well as a nice smooth MAP signal for the ECU.
TEC2 system recomended 1/2" log, and that's what we ended up with. For older manifolds without such a plenum for the MAP and Vacuum Accessory taps, a piece of Fuel Rail Stock gives a nice compliment and can be piggybacked next to your fuel rail as a visually pleasing addition when you make the conversion to EFI (or to simply get someplace to take a vacuum reading that doesn't bang your gauge to death!)
I previously ran my 240ZT with some 1/8" npt nipple barbs in each runner, to 1/4 tubing, which had 3/8"x1/4"x3/8" "T" fittings to manifold it all together and even that worked as a balance tube quite well with Mikuinis. The engine really smoothed out when it was put on compared to it's actions under boost before the balance tube was in place. I guess that would be equivalent to a 3/8" log, huh?
-
"I observe things that seemingly have little relevance to anybody but myself."
-
LOL
"I am now officially happy!"
ROMAFLOL
-
My wife would shoot me if she even knew I was looking at this thread!
My dad saw a photo of one of these Patrols in my photo albums and said basically the same thing JohnC just did, prefaced by 'That looks just like the jeeps we had in Korea!'
-
Yes, the larger pilots will run the engine at partial throttle to 3000 rpms under normal conditions. The pilots on my car are 60.5 or possibly 63's if I recall.
Another thing you 'might' be able to try is to use a slightly smaller 'booster venturi' in there---normally they are 12's, and if you change to 10's, you will get the main jet coming into the circuit earlier, allowing for smaller pilot jetting. These are not the main choke, these are the ones that are on the 'stalks'---and using them to trim at what RPM the main circuit comes in will sometimes help---though it will make the upper rpm ranges more enrichened as the velocity through the carb increases as well. They give an increased vacuum signal on the wells that draws up more mixture into the barrel.
This bog is almost identical to the 'if you think carbs are easy' scenario I give for the reasons I ditched my mikuinis and went EFI. A few keystrokes and dyno pulls and you can experiment with stuff that will take you hours/days/weeks/seasons to sort out with jets tubes, etc...
From my understanding of the Jet Block setups, the "OA" was the last one on the market, the other versions were 'earlier' and had less optimized fueling solutions. Looking at OEM applications almost all the Toyota applications retrofitted 'OA' blocked carbs into the field when they were available, rather than keeping the earlier blocks out there. The drivability of the later carbs is greatly increased at partial-throttle over the earlier emulsion tubes. I suspect at the cost of upper-end horsepower, but the partial throttle (as we are seeing here) is far more important on a road-course/autox car than terminal power. Maybe if you were running Bonneville there may be an advantage for the earlier block configurations, but I doubt the tradeoff would be worth the effort.
Good Luck, man.
-
I was having same hesitation problems that other people have posted about. I tried all their solutions, nothing has worked. Then, I noticed the (newly reman'ed) AFM was installed backwards.
I need photos to visualize how that trap-door AFM would even let the car run at anything but idle speed if installed 'backwards'... It would make no metering decisions at all other than being completely closed (idle position) all the time.
It doesn't hinge backwards, there is no way that would have run the car down the road at all. Not the way I'm figuring it, anyways.
-
without increased fuel pressure (To effectively increase those stock fuel injector's flow capacity) I think you are treading on thin ice at anything over 10psi...
-
Nigel...now you see why I'm such a proponent of not screwing with the EVAP cannister, and keeping it intact, as well. Your example is a good one of something the factory engineers looked at an compensated for: enleanment under increased temperature.
What does your fuel do when you heat it? Expand and turn to vapor. The Evap cannister's purge valves will hold several inches of water column in the tank before it 'relieves' pressure to the cannister for collection. While this is mostly an emissions concern after shutdown, it helps keep pump suction head higher running down the road. Unless you are seriously sucking fuel down (like NHRA Fuel Flows) the likelyhood of the fuel getting hot and expanding (and therefore resulting in a pressure rise in the tank) is greater than sucking a vacuum on the thing. This 'heat expansion' will allow for that pressurization on the fuel pump, and combat this kind of issue.
What is also happening is 'hot fuel'---you can see this on Diesel Dynos, Detroits were notorious for this, as they gave a specific heat for the fuel when run on the dyno. Simply heat it from 70 to 108 F and you got all sorts of 'efficency increases'... This is a primary reason the Z31 box uses (and I believe all new vehicles currently) a fuel temperature sensor in a lookup table/compensation loop. The BTU content per fluid volume measure decreases dramatically with some of these fuels, and indeed 'cold fuel makes more power' because you get more into the chambe to combust.
If you can't touch the fittings without feeling uncomfortable, you are in the 140F range. This is almost universal. See if you can touch your fuel rails and tank bottom after a long run. An Infra-Red Temp gun from AutoZone will open your eyes quite a bit. Once you buy one, you start using it on everything (everybody does it!) and start going "Hmmmm, Oh, Hmmmmm!"
We run a 5 gallon cel on the Bonneville Car, have the fuel packed on ice as long as possible, fill the tank and keep the cool can filled with crushed ice to get the fuel as cold as possible. Our fuel rail will sweat at idle on the starting line! It keeps things consistent.
I have always suggested that guys with A/C in their car run their fuel line ziptied to their A/C line, and then insulated. You loose some cooling efficiency in the cabin (you will never notice, the pump just runs slightly longer), but you can significantly affect your fuel temperatures everywhere in the system doing this. If it's hot enough for you to consider running A/C, it's hot enough to consider what it's doing to your fuel---works great.
-
Yes, I mentioned 20psi as I knew you could get caps with that rating relatively inexpensively.
It's not a matter of keeping it flowing in the head, it's a matter of getting enough pump suction head that cavitation doesn't happen when you turn the impeller to fast, or exceed design tip speeds. This can happen with increased temperature at relatively slow speeds as well. It all interacts.
But the increased static pressure prevents nucleate boiling like John said, and that is what can cause the cavitation in the impeller as well. (And when the pump cavitates, you cease flowing...meaning heat transfer, or carrying heat away more properly, ceases. Then you start that n-boiling, and from there, all is lost!)
-
We run the ERC Spec Fuel at Bonneville and El Mirage, and it's 110+ Leaded. And we run 14.75:1 CR on that.
-
Any hammer is fine---they're trash once they've been torqued anyway. They are a throway part. An arbor press can be used with a jig if you're doing production removal on large numbers of rods... but otherwise properly cribbed and a smart whack with any hammer should take them right out!
-
Just from personal observation, that G-Nose looks like an OEM version, which has been period modified to match the flared fenders. Mine was the same when I got it. It was a simple matter of work with a body saw to separate, then finish the edges to allow for removal of the valence.
The G-Nose, if an original Urethane-Bumpered Version, is worth FAR more than anybody here is giving it credit for---add a "Zero" to the only post mentioning the price.
If you think you can touch an OEM G-Nose for under $1500, you let me know where, I'll buy and pay shipping worldwide to get it to me.
-
Ahhhh, so it still does exist...
My point was that previously every manufacturer of oil products made the claim---especially on Television Adverts. I don't see that claim being made public like that any more. I see galloping oil horses, but nothing about paying for the engine from an oil related failure.
I think Arco Graphite's Ford Debacle started the decline in that claim.
It's good to know Mobil still warrants against oil-related failure, but I see a $50K piece of litigation to get your $3K engine replaced.
-
Close. The lower rad hose doesn't really need to be called out as a box, and the recirc lines should all just go to the thick blue arrow coming from the radiator return.
Technically, the Thermostat is not a block valve as drawn, but more properly drawn as a regulator with the flag for the sensing line on the engine side...but I look at this stuff all the time...for work....STOP MAKING THIS WORK!
Some more information on the Diesel (LD28) Water Pump:
Flow rate is 30.6gpm at 3400 rpm pump speed.
Driven speed on the diesel is 1.32:1, with a maximum power occurring at 4600rpms, so you may deduce that the 30.6 GPM is being produced at a crankshaft speed of 2575 rpms...which is conincidentally 175 rpms higher than it's peak torque rating speed (2400 rpms crankshaft speed)
In an industrial application the torque peak is rated at 2300 rpms crankshaft speed, and is down 9 ft-lbs from the automotive torque peak rating.
If you look at the pump drive ratio, and recognise that the diesel is peak HP rated at 4600 rpms, you see the pump speed there is 6072 rpms. I don't know what speed cavitation will happen in this pump, given the NPSH present, but consideration of re-considering the actual drive speed of the pump and actually slowing it down may pay dividends in a more stable flow characteristic.
As John Coffee stated, running a 20psi radiator cap would solve all the problems as well...and that may be something to look into; perhaps the non-diesel pumps are experiencing some higher speed cavitation and causing heat buildup problems.
But for roadgoing street cars it looks like the diesel water pump may well indeed offer more flow without any penalty at the speeds the engine sees 85-95% of the time.
-
I found out some stuff on the LD28 regarding power, gearing, etc.
For INDUSTRIAL use, the engine as is the norm is rated at 2600rpms (very near peak torque, or dropping back to peak torque under load...like industrial engines do. This would mean for ideal cruising and peak efficiency you would gear for this speed.
For AUTOMOTIVE use, the engine has the following ratings:
92HP @ 4600 rpms
125 ft-lbs @ 2400 rpms
The Maxima Wagon with a Manual 5 Speed to 6-82 came with a 3.545 Rear Gear.
The Maxima Wagon with 4-Speed Autobox to 6-82 came with a 3.36 Rear Gear.
The Maxima Wagon with 4-Speed Autobox 7-82 onward came with a 3.70 Rear Gear.
This would mesh nicely with my testing on the 260, as the rear gearing is a 3.7, and my max speed would be 4750rpms with the late ZX Gearbox in there...coinciding nicely with Keith Bailey's Claim of 112mph 'all in' with the diesel---the 92HP would be near that point with the 3.9 he had (My recollection on his gearing may be faulty, but it did well on the Auto-X course!)
So I'm thinking the 3.7 may be an near "OEM setup" as far as gearing goes with a late ZX transmission, and if you are running higher speeds then a 3.545 or even 3.36 rear gear would keep you in that high 30mpg / low 40mpg range similar to a Maxima when new (42/38 as I recall).
Figured I'd post this in the spirit of completeness. Plus I found the LD Water Pump is rated at 30 5/8 GPM @ 3400 rpm pump speed...which I will add to another thread on L28 Turbo Cooling issues...
O-ring vs. Headgasket?
in Nissan L6 Forum
Posted
Heat that kills pistons is from preignition and you will never hear it, the things just catastrophically fail. The pressure trace is completely different than that of detonation. Though pressures are just as high, if not higher.
The pressure spikes of detonation are what breaks things, and I can't believe cast pistons withstood detonation or preignition that blew a head gasket unless something was improperly done in the head gasket application.