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 part of the '85' is renewable?
M85 is a better alternative, IMO, but both are a lie when it comes to 'renewable fuel' most Ethanol is hydrocracked form crude oil here in CA because it's cheaper. In the midwest Ethanol is a good subsidy to keep people employed, but it's really kind of an irresponsible way to make people think it makes a difference.
You can run Fantastic Compression on CNG, and CNG truly IS a 'renewable fuel' as you can (and people do) recover medium btu CH4 from landfills. This goes through conventional stripping and refining processes, and the CO2 is recovered for use to put bubbles in beer, and the 1100 BTU / CF Methane is ready for use as pipeline gas, or vehicular fueling.
Alcohol makes for a neat subsidy for ADM, but the petroleum used to grow the corn kind of skews the equation. There is a lot more to it than the propaganda the AG Collective foists on the unwitting media.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, I was a TMEN Alcohol Fuel Seminar Attendee (by proxy--couldn't travel to NC when it was happening, so paid the full boat for all the materials, still have that orange folder aroudn somewhere...cost me $$$ back in the day!)
Alcohol is sustainable for Farm Usage---that is to say some sort of Mad-Max existence where people make their own fuel to survive. Enough can be made on small parcels using the correct feedstocks to keep you in fuel.
But without the freely available petroleum distillate of gasoline it takes a LOT of alky to go anywhere. I produced close to 500 gallons, which drove me close to 5000 miles over a period of a year. The only way it was even sustainable was for me to mix my own 'gasahol' and get the federal taxes back on the gasoline I mixed with it.
Without government subsidies, neither M85 or E85 is a viable fuel that would support their own refining and production costs in the open market.
You want "fantastic compression" propane and CNG have octane ratings in the 115-120 range! And having driven dedicated CNG and Propane vehicles, the torque you get is tremendous compared to gasoline engines....
-
I had an uncle who flew P51s. Among many of his stories that amazed me as a kid was the account of how he liked to find an excuse to use "combat emergency" power.
Seems that his Merlin had a 2-speed gearbox driving its supercharger. Push the throttle all the way forward to break a safety wire and now your supe is in high gear/ boost and you're haulin' ass.
According to Uncle there were indicators that the crew could monitor to tell when this feature was used, and it would flag the need for a very much shortened engine rebuild interval. He said that you better have a good story for the crew chief or you were in for a butt-chewing.
Airjockie will confirm this, but the F15C/D hasa a similar .020" copper safetywired pair of switches under the port bulkhead slightly aft of the pilot labeled "VMAX" and "ECM"...
During my incentive flight, I discussed this with the Captian flying me around, and it really didn't take a lot of arm twisting for him to flip the "VMAX" switch.
We were at Full Afterburner (MIL POWER) and when he flipped that switch it was like someone pushed me from behind...with a UPS TRUCK!
It was at low altitude, too, over the Sea of Japan, kicking up a sonic roostertail! I got MY taxdollars worth out of that ride. Normally incentive rides take about 30 minutes, mine was over in slightly under 15 minutes.
And yeah, first thing the crewchief did was look at that switch and then run to the tailfeathers and steart swearing.
Then he called AGE and PLSC and they started the engine change procedure.
MUAHAHAHA! That pretty much made up for most of the "bad stuff" that happened while I was in...
To John C's comment about the B36, it's a damn impressive machine. I went in, on and all around the one on Static Display at Chanute AFB in the mid-80's. The SP's were called more than once when maggots caught us inside, but we always escaped! I made a detour to show my son the thing, but the base was decommissioned, and they had moved that thing somewhere... It really was a cool bird to play around in!
-
This thread got me wondering.... My '73 has a B.A.R. sticker in the door jamb that states that it is registered with the 1964 chevy 327 c.i. engine.
I find all this smog requirement talk quite entertaining. Per the California laws posted an engine swap must use the same year or newer engine to be legal. Then how did a 1964 327 get a B.A.R sticker for a 1973 Z?
"If the engine swap was conducted before May 1984' date=' pre and post dating of engines was allowable"
I know this as I tried to get a 71 L24 Induction/Exhaust system certified on my 73 when I moved here. When it was all said and done, it was clear Smog Laws were about perpetuating a bureaucracy and had very little to do with either common sense, nor clean air. My enraged last words to the referee after jumping through every hoop they put up, was 'Screw you, next time you see this car, it's going to have an LS3 454 Big Block in it from a 73 Corvette!' his reply was "Good, we can smog THAT!"
Grrrrrrr! Needless to say that was the last time I legally smogged the 73...
But to add something to this discussion, remember that there STILL exists a rolling exemption!
Yes indeed girls and boys, vehicles manufactured 35 years ago [i']and insured under collector car insurance[/i] no longer have a VISUAL INSPECTION FAIL CRITERION!
What that is to say is that my 1973 (if you do DMV Math) with the originally installed 71 SU system on it would only be required to pass a TAILPIPE smog check. VISUAL CRITERION IS DISMISSED because I have Haggerty Insurance on it. The pre-75 cars are a grey area, but the DMV was forced to this through lobbying on SEMA's part during the last round of SMOG madness.
When the 76's come due, though not technically approved, a standaone EFI that retained the Catalyst would pass the SMOG test required of it with an aftermarket FPR and Fuel Rail... As long as it passes clean out the pipe, which should not be a problem.
It's a little known quirk in the laws. If you have your car insured by Haggerty, or one of the other collector-car companies, remember this fact. They can't fail on visual criterion, the cars with colector car insurance are EXEMPT from a VISUAL FAILURE CRITERION.
-
DON'T BREAK IT so that you will miss the show in Temecula on Sunday!!!
Where is 'racelegal' held, anyway?
-
Never heard of Wesco, will have to see their product. I have installed Schroth in the past, and it was a very high quality piece, and for a LONG time was the ONLY manufacturer that had DOT/FMVSS approval on their belts (which evolved through their passing the German TUV approval process to sell their parts in native Germany).
-
Meh... you can run synthetic oil to combat the diluition of the Ethanol. Newer synthetic rubbers compounded for EFI take in to account the Alcohol Content of current gasoline. Making changeout like in the old days un-necessary.
I converted a VW to run 100% Ethanol back in the early 80s'. Terrible mileage and hard to start when cold is an understatement.
EFI should take care of the starting, and some of the fuel consumption issue...
Then again...why?
-
I looked at an old original photo of my car and theyre isnt a right side mirror. I dont know why but there isnt.
BubbleGuinea- As you probably read on the last page, Ive been trying to figure out a way to incorporate a rollbar into a 2+2 while keeping the back accesible and the back seat still able to fold down. I dont have a car thats together to go look at and get measurements or I would be out theyre now trying to find a solution, so Ill have to rely on others ideas till my car is finished.
I am just reviewing these posts...if you are still on the lookout for one of those bars, I have a JDM 'bolt together' bar I harvested from an S30 2+2 just before I left Japan. I'm not up to sell it, but could graph and measure the thing so you could replicate it locally... or maybe take it to Autopower in San Diego so they could do it. PM me.
-
The roofline may provide some advantage due to the quicker departure of the hatch. I think a lot of the 'aero advantage of the 2+2' talk comes from a misconception about the Bonneville Records we have attained in the Land Speed Z, a 1976 280Z 2+2. The reason we used a 2+2 had absolutely nothing to do with aerodynamics, but rather class rules that class the 2+2 in a 'production' class, rather than a 'GT' or 'Sports' class. Being in production, there are possibly 17 records we can go after with simple body changes, adding forced induction, or running 'fuel' instead of gasoline. If we ran a coupe, we could run and compete for only 4 classes, GT, BGT, GMS, & GBMS...that's it! And the records for 'MS' class are smoking fast in the engine classes we run---prime competition is Ferraris of 3 liter engine size... anybody recognize the name "Bob Norwood" if that says enough.
So really, the reason was rules based, like many racing decisions. Nothing at all to do with Aerodynamics.
-
Schroth offers a number of DOT approved four point harnesses.
John beat me to it, Schroth makes the only OEM style three point replacement belt kits I would consider for the Z. They have some VERY nice products available, and like anything good....well do I really need to say the words:
"How much is your life worth?"
One thing I will add about the guy in Holland who works for the Paris-Dakar Prep Company...he is the panelbeater for the company, and is making aluminum hood and door skins for the vehicle---the guys intention for the rocker panel bars was more ersatz tubeframe than safety. The guy wants to be able to alter any aspect of the monocoque without comprimising the integrity and stiffness of the chassis. Basically 'A Z Skin' to play with as a panelbeater with time on his hands would see fit. It just happens that it's an FIA approved Cage Engineering works, so he has a LOT of competent oversight in the shop to help with his toy. I will have to find the photos and post them.
-
Usually the check valve is integral with the pump discharge fitting or body.
If the pressure bleeds off, look for leaks such as a weeping FPR pintile to the return side, or a dribbling injector pintile dumping fuel to the intake.
Either of those would also cause pressure drop after shutdown.
You can install a check valve in the line, but if it's one of these other common items, it won't do you any good.
Cheers!
-
-
I just read the zcar.com post. If people would spend a little time researching why Tim's car makes the power it does they might have a different response. It's more than an L28 with a GT42R... way more. It's my opinion that no matter what proof, data, video or pictures TimZ or even JeffP provide, some people will always be skeptical. Both TimZ's car and JeffP's car make tremendous power but with different approaches. At no point have I seen Tim or Jeff make this a competition or say one dyno is better than the other. It would be different if they did. We just get to see the individual results of their hard work. How cool is that! I think we are lucky they provide the information about their respective setup's. Unfortunately, if I was Tim, I'd question whether I wanted to be as outspoken in the future which would be a loss to everyone.
Absolutely, JGK! My comment there was apparently misconstrued as some sort of dig. I was simply trying to say that I wish we could get both Jeff's and Tims cars both on at least 'similar' dynos for a comparo of the performance characteristics. Unfortunately, the geographical separation makes this impossible. The closest resolution I could see was for Jeff to take his car over to where we do out dyno testing for the Bonneville Car (same place John C used for the Rusty Old Datsun) and then we would have as close as an 'apples to apples' comparo of the curve characteristics as possible.
I don't know about anyone else, but seeing the two curves on a similar graphing (X-Y Axis Scalars especially) really intrigues me. Taking a curve from a Mustang will produce a different curve, so any comparo of those two would be worthless.
Where the curves are on the graph really is irrelevant (on the Y axis, I guess is what I'm saying), the characteristic curve is more important. I know talking with Jeff personally, he is very interested in my thought to run it on a Dynojet just so we can compare stuff for our own purposes. There are decisions we have to make regarding our Bonneville engine, and this kind of run will give us some data to use for that decisionmaking process.
It has nothing to do with 'biggest numbers' either... most of the detractors will not make half than power, so what is the point (like Tim said) of even bothering with their commentary. I mean, if EITHER of them wanted to get on the 'A-Hole Horse' and be a lower body part about it, they could easily proclaim their engine makes more power at 2400rpm than XYZ.... Meh! What's the point. It's a learning curve, and we're all learning.
Part of learning is curosity, and my curiosity is piqued to really see what the difference is between the curve and numbers Jeff gets on the Mustang compared to the Dynojet. Actually, we have now discussed the possibility of doing the tuning on the Mustang in the AM, and then on the drive back to Jeff's house, making a detour to either Superior or DRS and doing a quick 'strapdown pull sequence' on one of their Dynojets so it's all in the same day with similar barometrics. Curiosity about the dynos as much as the cars power production, really...
I hope that clears up my part of that mess.
-
The height of the stock VK56 manifold is also an issue and could easily be re-designed so it could be used in more applications (like a 240Z ...)
Yes, yes it could.... Maybe a dual plenum lowrise crossram design using Z32 T/B's...
LOL
Where have I heard that before, Ken? LOL
-
These rare occurances tend to focus our attention beyond any reasonable evaluation of the chance of it happening.
I can't remember now if I posted in this thread or not about engineering for reasonable eventualities as opposed to every eventuality, but this indeed goes along with what John is saying: there will always be something so horiffic so as to draw your attention and make you go 'I don't want that to ever happen to me!'
But you can't live like that---life isn't safe. You just have to take your reasonable risks. Reasonable doubt has turned to 'beyond any shadow of a doubt' today. And that's unreasonable.
Prep soft, belt tight, and minimize impact angle to draw out collision time. When it comes down to it, take the hit anywhere BUT the driver's door, and do whatever you can to position the vehicle like that. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. You do what you can, when you can, and that's all you can hope for.
-
Yes, since I've been accused of being pedantic in the past here, I'll clarify that I was referring to the latch switch as you supposed. Internal structures are bollocksed up anyway, the US doors are impossible for my hands to fit inside and do any appreciable work... I hate the door beams for that reaason alone! not to say they are bad. just makes working inside the door impossible for my hamhock hands.
The latch I would assume was a hand-in-hand change with the improved door beam, but not to say 'build out cars' don't exist. I would venture to say the later latch design would give optimal integrity in conjunction with the door beam of the latest design. Earlier cars with that same 'improved beam' and the older latch obviously will not have the same door-closed-during-impact integrity (which is the reason for the enclosed latch). Better than the previous design, of course, just not 'the best'. Ultimately for an early car, the later doors (pre 6/76) with the heavier door beam would probably give you the best door available from a safety standpoint of integrated engineering. But like BJ Mentioned, the doorbeam is pretty darned low to do any good against anything but another Z on the track...
-
The 2L Bonneville engine we are currently running gets that 'warble' of the F1 engines when we were on the dyno above 9000rpms with the open headers. With the twin 3" pipes, it's a little less severe, and a deeper tone, and we have to get it to about 9500 to have it make that strange harmonic.
it's a very distinctive sound, and it did remind me of an F1 engine at full song.
Even the guys up on the Lake commented that the 2L engine 'sounds better' than the L28 we were running a couple of seasons ago. It's got far lower compression than the L28 as well (11:1 maybe... compared to 14.75:1 with the L28). Slightly shorter headers, but the same basic design as the L28 units.
Curiously, the 2L didn't loose power with the exhaust on the car, while the L28 lost 20HP. That was a shocker!
Does sound good. Just got to get a decent recording off the 'helmet cam' during the June meet and I'll try to get it posted. Recording doesn't do the sound it makes justice....
-
Yes, the change to the 'internal striker mechanisim' for the door latches is what makes them not-interchangable with the earlier cars. The bulge on the door where the internal striker mechanisim makes for a door that won't close on an earlier chassis. This change happened post 6/76...there may be some 'build out cars' but for US and North American Market Models, chances are good if the doors are 6/76 or later you will not be able to forward/reverse interchange the doors. Before that, they are completely interchangable as a complete assembly. There are some interior panel dimensional changes, but nothing that is insurmountable as long as you have the complete door assembly.
Fairlady Z's on the other hand, had gloriously unreinforced doors 69-77.
It's the only way the factory power window assemblies would fit in the ZL cars for 76 and 77 anyway...
Oh, and I'm not saying you need to be an F1 Engineer to tackweld in some bars. Go for it. But if you want a chassis engineered properly for transfer of forces....well you simply don't go adding 'some rocker bars' and hope for the best. Which goes back to someone's original post about 'doing more harm than good' in most cases. Poorly thought-out modifications can kill you, period. "Thinking them out" is one thing, "Engineering them" is something totally different, indeed.
Ever see a roll bar break? I have.
Ever see the transmission come up through the floorboards during an impact? I have.
You don't wan't poorly attached poles swinging around inside the car, hinged from an anchorpoint, and propelled by an outside immovable object.
-
Just an FYI, the USAF uses that adhesive backed "aluminum tape" as stock in their ABDR Trailers (Air Battle Damage Repair). They fair in riveted panels' leading edges with it, it's both sticky, persistent, and won't peel back off if applied to a clean surface at speeds well over what we will be acheiving in a four-wheeled vehicle. It is the tape of choice in "Tony's Z Graveyard" behind the house for sealing the edges of P.O. installed Sunroofs, windshields that are cracked, or have sealing problems with the cracked and weathered seals... Some of that stuff I applied in 1991, and it's STILL stuck on the root of a Fairlady Z, hasn't lifted yet!
So if you are thinking of using aluminum tape to finish your sealing, I'd say it will probably deliver Yoeman Service in that duty!
Duct Tape, on the other hand, is very disapointing, even the good stuff made in the US of A. Won't last more than a year, and even less when exposed to direct sunlight.
-
so... yeah i don't see how painting a manifold would keep it cool... anodized cpu heatsyncs don't work as well as plain ol aluminum and those don't work as well as copper... what we need is a copper manifold with fins all over it. or hell, a ceramic bottom manifold with a copper top and ceramic runners?
Actually, you need a Glasfibre Injection Moulded PLASTIC intake manifold which will insulate the HELL out of the incoming charge from any an all underhood heat.
Ever take a gander at what many of the OEM's are doing? Injection moulded plastics can be put into very complex shapes, and do a dandy job of insulating heat and noise as well. Anybody remember the plastic L-Engine Turbo Valvecovers? JDM application. Kept underhood radiation of heat from the slung-off oil on the valve cover to nil, and quieted valve clatter quite a bit as well. Many Cedrics and Glorias had these valve covers.
After a hard run, putting your bare hand straight on the valve cover was not a problem at all.
The future: PLASTICS
-
I guess coil packs are the way top go for high boost.
high boost and high compression and high rpm...
the multiple coil setups allow charging time to a factor of six compared to one coil supplying the whole engine.
if you have intelligent sensing of the charge of a coil, like the old TEC2, it remembered what voltage discharge it took to fire the cylinder on the last revolution, and will charge the coil to that specific output, and a bit more...then move to charging the next coil in the sequence. A TEC2 would run 10 amps for the whole ECU and Coilpack on a Turbo Engine, while an MSD box in the same setup would be running 20Amps +!
Lower draw, less wasted spark energy. Allows smaller alternator, saves weight... Many benefits.
Our dyno operator said the same thing about the Bonneville car: we could have gotten the same power from carbs, but the reliability you got from that crankfired ignition system is what kept it in one piece for four seasons! The distributor-based systems would not have that spark accuracy.
Any engine will benefit from saturate coils discharging a good spark over a larger gap---lights off rich and lean mixtures more efficiently and consistently, meaning more power, and less cylinder to cylinder variation---which can snap a crank given the right circumstances!
-
Let me throw this out for comment. I'm pretty sure what I'm saying is correct, but if not, I would love to learn more!
Pete, you are absolutely 100% correct! I deal with using I-R thermometers on a daily basis, and anybody who has ever taken the time to actually read their instruction booklet will tell you that Stainless Steel is specifically called out in the I-R Thermometer instructions as a material with radically different emmisivity, causing terribly skewed (low) readings. In the Raytek Bulletins they recomend painting a circular spot on the surface of a stainless steel pipe to get the emissivity into a range where the I-R Thermometer can correctly read it. They also state sticking masking tape onto the surface will correct the reading substantially.
Myself, I carry several cans of Flat-White High-Temp Engine Paint for shooting little circles so those that follow behind can correctly follow my temperature surveys of the system.
You can see the difference immediately upon drying of the paint. On a discharge manifold pipe I can read 180F on the stainless steel pipe directly, and move a fraction of an inch over to the 'flat white dot' and the reading SOARS to 345F+! Operators, fellow Field Engineers, heck, just about everybody is amazed that the reading can be skewed as much as that, simply from surface emissivity.
So yeah, when using I-R Temperature Sensing Technology, BE VERY CAREFUL on what you shoot. Some stuff can really give you bogus readings. The killer is when there are stainless fittings and a black rubber hose. Fitting elbow shows 180, rubber is over 300F! You would think rubber is 'an insulator'...
-
I guess my e-mail no longer goes to Jeffp's "Trash Bin"...
LOL
-
Verrrrry interesting. Yes, the nose did look extended. "Hybrid G" if you will (snark)... If I can find the photos I took when I examined the vehicle first hand in Atlanta in 95, would you be interested in some scans of the negatives, Alan? I'm curious about the Japanese side of the story as well. When I saw the car, I was immediately shocked at the appearance of so many of the "Yellow Book" Accessories hung on the car. I remember taking a load of photos...but this was the days before all those nice acid free archival negative carriers, and who knows where I stored them... My only saving grace is that I live in SoCal now, and Humidity/Mould Growth does not present a problem like it did in my other living location...
P.S. The thing that drew my attention to the Datsun Macau was the original owner's stationing in Okinawa---which was a US territory at the time. There were very strange and special vehicles offered in that market that made their way to the USA which normally didn't get offered in the US market. I knew a few locals how likely were involved in the original ordering / procurement of the car, but when I saw it originally in 95, they were foggy on some of the details as you have mentioned. There was some question in their mind about how it actually was converted/delivered. But with AAFEES (Army Air Force Exchange Service) and the rules for foreign delivery of vehicles (especially to officers) at the time anything is possible. This was delivered during Vietnam, and at that time it wasn't unheard of that CIA Operated 707's loaded up officers personal goods if they had space, and flew them wherever they happened to be going. Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok... At the time, being stationed on Okinawa, and having a few beers with a Traffic Management Officer on Naha or Kadena could get you BIG favors for shipment of just about anything. Ahhh, the 'war stories' of old enlisted personnel....
-
300 is nowhere near the limits of the stock system, especially if you use 450cc Bosch Injectors and jack up the fuel pressure (pump upgraded)...
Jeff was supporting 450 flywheel HP at that point.
It is making more now.
goofy idea, fan blades on wheels?
in Windtunnel Test Results and Analysis
Posted
There was a racing team that closed out in SoCal in the mid 90's that sold off a load of those wheel-fans.