Tony D

MS can run in that mode as well on a Z... Don't know why you would, but you could...

Did you go to the link I referenced? That directly answers your question. The F54 has a lot of myths surrounding it. Siamesed cylinders notsomuch, but improved cooling around the bores yes. Due to the improved cooling to keep the bores round, the decreased the wall thickness (as stated earlier) No matter which way you slice it, the metal used in the OEM casting is not as strong as the metal used in the liners. I can't conceive why you are hung up on logitunidal force transfer they are siamesed in the non-thrust direction. I'm missing some transferrence in your question, originally your question was why the liners were in the block you had, and I addressed it as best I could. Is this another question you've moved on to? You really need to read the link I referenced to understand how liners work. If they could pull over 800HP out of a non-posted, linered block, why do you need it, and what are your plans that make you think you need it?

Ohhhhh, young-uns here, eh? LOL To get the rising fuel pressure from a mechanical pump, you tap the 'spring side' of the diaphragm housing, and supply boost pressure. Your resultant fuel pressure will rise as boost does, and keep original fuel pressure biased by the original fuel pump pressure plus boost.

"There is probably no way you can put the engine under 100% load on public roads (I've tried)." JeffP is in that boat now. Finally got his system to track properly, and now is lighting the cars rear tires up at will. His next step: 300# of pea gravel or aquarium rocks in bags over the rear tires and stickier tires. Street tuning will save you time when you go to the dyno, but ultimately even an hour on a dyno will reveal horsepower, or something you didn't find on the street. Right now, JeffP is at the quandary "7500rpm in third gear is go to jail territory and second just won't stay hooked up at all!"

I agree, Mike. From what you saw of my response to the post there at ZC.C I think I summed it up pretty well. Phil really didn't have any reason to post what he did on the followup--it only goes to counter to constructive commentary (not something high on that site's list of priories). Phil does a lot with his site to get knowledge dispersed, and undoubtedly will help disseminate what information is gleaned---but the 'I haven't gotten a thank-you' only leads to counterproductive thoughts regarding this effort, and was innapropriate. ANYTHING posted on ZC.C regarding this testing is irrelevant. Contributors know (or should know) where the APPROPRIATE forum is to address the progress. ZC.C is NOT an appropriate forum for such discussion. Like I said there, 'there is a reason it's being done there and not here'---it pretty much sums it up. There are those there who will continually throw sarcastic stones because their minds are so small they don't appreciate the curiosity/yen for knowing. And by knowing, I mean hands-on. There are some who say this 'has been done' by this magazine, or Nissan itself. To those people, I say "Show me the results, and where they had the tests performed". Likely Nissan did some testing, but it was more for product improvement of the next generation S130, and not as a precoursor or developmental step to the S30 in the 60's. I look forward to the testing results, not that it will help me presonally, but because as I said at the outset: Because I want to know the real story, and not something of nebulous origin that has been parroted for 30+ years. And to confirm my testing doen in the early 90's when I had more time than money. No more money now, and even less time...

Monty Burns Voice: "Ex.....cellent!" Looks like I will be on that side of the USA in the general timeframe as well. I may have to 'make' my flight route through Charlotte and take a delay... Wouldn't be the first time. I like to take photos! LOL

Oh oh, famous last words: "I have a friend who may help out a little. He is an EE and pretty good at reading manuals." They always are, they always are! LOL

Oh, and this: "I can't see how linering a block makes the block any more capable of supporting more lateral piston thrust. I can see how, if linering with harder materials, it could make it more wear resistant. In fact, I can only see how linering makes the block LESS capable of resisting thrust forces, as the liner itself is not tied into the block at all, so you are simply removing material that distributes the thrust forces." The liners are tied hard and fast at the top and bottom through interference fits. They don't 'drop in'---usually they are chilled to -40 while the block is either at room temperature or heated to operating temperature and then PRESSED IN with a hydraulic apparatus. This give more than enough interference fit to lock the block and liner together as integral parts of the same assembly. When this occurs, the 'unsupported' portions of the liner between the top and bottom of the block they are in function as surrogate cylinder walls. You seem to be making the assumption that they are somehow loose in the block flopping around, and this is far from the case. The liner walls are every bit as stable as the OEM cast cylinders. In fact, piston thrust loads are not really that great, and rarely come into play at all. You could support them on the thinnest of tubing. What you will notice on most cylinder liners is the upper portion is considerably thicker than the lower portion. The lower portion only handles thrust loadings, but the upper portion handles cylinder pressures directly. THIS is where a cylinder liner can shine. Nitromethane Dragsters have SERIOUSLY thick upper combustion chamber and power stroke depth liners, that taper quickly to almost nothing (comparatively) below the lower ring travel area. That is the difference between supporting thrust loadings, location of the liner in general, and Combustion Pressure. Combustion Pressure (and more specifically, Detonation Pressures) can/will/have caused thin cast walled blocks to literally split open. The cure for this is liners of sufficient wall thickness installed into the same block, held fast by the deck and main cap girdle area of the engine. I have personally split both VW and Corvair overbored 'cylinder jugs' running 25psi+ of boost. I've also blown the case studs out of both of them doing the same stupid crap... "Splitting a Jug" was a concern with Corvairs on 0.060" overbores if you boosted enough and even slightly detonated...once! If you could look at the thickness of the cylinder walls on those particular applications you would get a pretty good idea of what the absolute minimum wall thickness should be for any water-cooled application. They warp and overheat when the walls get thin, then you blow by...then you detonate and split a jug... Thicker cylinder walls stay round, thin ones don't. I'm glossing over this a lot. This is the tech link to Darton Sleeves, and it has a load of information on it as to why and how, and etc etc etc. Spend some time there and you will get a pretty good idea what is going on with cylinder liners/sleeves. They talk a lot about abrasion resistance, but containing pressure is of primary concern as well. In this case, with the F54 block, on your application, my bet is someone was concerned about wall thickness after boring to piston diameter, and pressure containment/bore concentricity/ring sealing is why they linered the block. http://www.darton-international.com/tech_ctr.htm

The F54 has (relative to the N42) VERY thin walls. If you overbore to the limit, then there is insufficient wall thickness to support the expected loads. In this case, linering (and I somewhat mis-stated saying 'dry liner', these may indeed be 'wet liners') will give you a bore of sufficient wall thickness for all loads, compared to the bored F54 block. I forget the specifics, but the wall thickness on an N42 is something along the lines of 0.400". IMO, that allows a significant overbore wihout regard for core shifting. The F54, on the other hand has cylinder wall thickness less than that, I'm not sure but some say on the line of 0.0250". Obviously each block on a 3mm overbore (0.120") will have SIGNIFICANTLY different wall thicknesses. On an N42, you may be looking at 0.300", but on the F54, only 0.130". Generally on a high-quality wet liner you will have at least 0.125 to 0.180" of seriously high-grade spun-cast ductile iron which is MUCH stronger a metal than the general cast-iron block. It holds up better, and therefore would be a better support at that thickness than the cast block at 50% as much more thickness! This is why the JDM boys use the N42 almost exclusively in big-bore high-boost turbo applications. It is not uncommon to see an engine detonate there and blow the cylinder, then hydrolock. Nasty business. So given these examples, and throw in a core shifted block that has thin spots at the base or top of the virgin-bored block you can see that a competent machinist would likely decide (for lack of another block to use) simply keep on boring another 0.200 or 0.250" beyond the original bore size, liner the block giving rigid and true bores, and call it done. Darton has made a big business of high-tensile sleeves to put in aluminum blocks, as well as iron blocks. Having a sleeved block for racing in many ways is preferable. If it comes time to remanufacture the engine, you simply order up another set of liners, LN2 the old ones and shatter them out, press in a new set and deck the block. You have then, the same seasoned block, dimensionally identical as what you had before, with fresh new bores. Keep in mind the S20 engine in the 432 had Wet Liners (liners that run directly on the coolant system, and not in a metal sleeve of the block casting for their whole length) primarily because it was a racing-specific vehicle and overboring was NOT an option. When you have 1998 CC's on a 2.0L maximum displacement racing class liners are your only option. It makes refreshing the engine simple: press the old liners out, o-ring and press in the new liners, reassemble the engine and you are ready to go racing. The issue you ahve is you have an F54, with thin walled cylinders. The common practice for big displacement engines is to use the N42, not the F54---simply due to the wall thickness issue mentioned above. So, for the vast majority of engine builders, they will use another block. Here in the USA, there is a myth of 'F54 Superiority' and that really only applies to Stock-Bore Applications. The cooling the cylinders get is somewhat more equal in the F54 with a stock bore. Knowing this redesign was effective, Nissan cut wall thickness accordingly. In the N42, wall integrity and thermal distortion was countered with metal mass (thick walls). Once you redesigned the coolant flow, you didn't need the mass, so they eliminated it as any good engineering student would tell you to do---saves money! The liners aren't there to reduce wear, I never said that. Someone else did, and that is in another application (think domestic crap...V8's specifically the SBC) In the V-8 world the metal used to cast blocks is NOWHERE near as high-quality as Nissan used in the L-Engines. in those applications, the spun-cast ductil iron cylinders, indeed are harder and wear better long term than the virgin metal in the OEM block. I mean, I've seen Ford 460's with almost a 1mm RIDGE at the top of the bore where ring travel stops (and only at 150,000 miles!!!!!!!) I mean 'ridge reamer' is an American and British invention! LOL You definately don't need on on any Nissan L-Block. I hope that made sense.

Nice integrated filter/swirlpot. Looks suprisingly like the FRAM unit, save for some extra fittings. Getting my drift? LOL

Yes, the limitation on bypass will the the orifice size in the regulating needle.jet combination---as flow increases beyond bypass capability pressure rises. This is how RRFPR's work, incidentally, along with some pneumatic amplyfication relay functions, which I don't EVEN want to get into! But yeah, at the limit it would "go safe" by raising fuel pressure. With larger fuel injectors, you may run into pulsation issues, check out JeffP's installation of an aftermarket pulsation dampner to smooth out pressure fluctuations and make the regulator action more smooth.

Those likely are aftermarket sleeves, installed for one reason or another. They are not stock. My bet is if you blueprint the deck height on the block you will find the height is shorter referencine crankshaft centerline to deck height from the decking operation after installing dry liners. This was a common procedure for JDM engines when bores got too close to the wall thickness limitations of the skimpy walled F54. That's why most JDM builders specify N42 Blocks for big bores: much thicker walls when overboing 2mm+. Chances are good the machinist who bored the block tested the cylinders and found the support lacking, so decided to sleeve the bores with higher quality materials of sufficient thickness to support expected loads at the bore diameter desired. L20A blocks would be overbored and LD28 Liners installed to make 2.4L engines (using the L24 Crank) without moving the vehicle's tax class from the 2-Litre Rating in the JDM. Same thing here on the F54 I'm betting---walls as-cast were simply too thin, so they linered the block instead of looking for another one, or getting the N42 which the internet myths say "are terrible"...

Like they say "the sound of a sizzling steak is what you are looking for" Takes some time for me to get mine set up for this thickness or that, but once it's set (and having something that has more adjustability like start high amperage and then drop it down for the rest of the bead) mkes for really easy welding. For my tastes, I haven't gotten the bag of MIG so much, and will TIG as much as I can. I have to pull wires to the shed from the feeder for my 100A 220 Breaker Box. Already have a dedicated 30A 220 out there for the Compressor and/or the Plasma Cutter, should have had the 100A pulled then. And the Edison guys went "Why in the world do you want 250A service to a Mobile Home?" Hey man, I only sleep in it, the rest is for everything BUT the house! LOL

The way the regulator works, the initial pressure is arrived at by a spring pressure against a diaphragm, pushing a needle valve against a seat. Fuel pressure pushes against the seat, and when it overcomes the spring pressure present, the valve cracks, bleeding off excess pressure down the return line. Now, put a vacuum line on the regulator, and manifold vacuum works on the same side of the diaphragm as the spring. This works with a net effect as lessening the spring's effective pressure against the seat, making it bleed off at a lower pressure. Conversely, you have (under boost) boost pressure+ spring pressure raising the fuel pressure. The stock FPR therefore will give confusing reading to people who don't understand how it works. They don't understand why with 'key on' but not running the thing makes 40psi, but when idling it only makes 36psi. Knowing now how it works, it becomes obvious that the pressure adding to or subtracting from the preset spring pressure is what is making the different pressures. In the case of 'key on' being higher than idle pressure, in effect what you are simulating is "0" manifold pressure at that point, the same pressure present at WOT in a N/A engine, and that is at least 18" of Hg higher pressure (roughly 9psi) than at idle. Anyway, the only limit would be burst pressure of the diaphragm. I have a spare....now I'm curious as well.... Mechanical failure will probably not be an issue. What will be more apt is what Clifton alludes to: if you have a fuel pump capable of supplying the flow for a 45psi Turbo Engine, the small orifices of the stock return lines on the stock FPR will most likely be more of a problem than mechanical integrity.

I'm missing something here: where did you get the idea that the F54 has liners? Is this from the parts manual, showing liners? They have that for ALL the L-Engines. They are service replacement units, if an engine looses a piston and damages one bore at low mileage you can repair the block to standard specification without replacing all six pistons by using one of the service replacement liners to restore standard bore dimensions on the damaged cylinder without having to overbore all six and the resultant component costs.

"1) The interference fit of the piston pint to small end of the rod, HOLDS the piston pin from ever walking over to the cylinder bore and scoring it…" I will say you may need to revise that portion of the statement. Until our overhaul of the Bonneville engine two years ago, I thought the exact same thing. Matter of fact, so did everyone else who we showed our block to after the pins walked out to the wall and put an 0.080" score down each bore. Pressed pin setup, done at a competent machinist facility in L.A. well known for Nissan Engine Work (not their fault, so I'm not naming names, everything else they did was pristine, and we did final assemlby of subcomponents ourselves) Still made 300+ to the rear wheels at 8300rpm, blowing by like a mother. And took two more records at Bonneville (final was 173.325mph) that year before retirement and building of the current L20A. Granted that was after four seasons of running at redline, but it CAN happen. That information posted by Phred is VERY interesting to me. Very interesting approach to the problem. BTW our rods were race prepped Nissan units, and you know how thick those ends are with a 22mm pin in them.

Opel GT, eh.... I got a 70 waiting for rebirth... Let me know how that swap fits.

Actually, if the filter is oriented correctly, with a tube to the bottom of the filter element for the pickup, and the inlet side just dumping fuel to the area circumfrentially around the filter...any 'sucked air' would remain at the top of the filter housing... With slight modifications such as running the return line into the top of the filter, and then back out to the tank, any sucked air would be bled back to the tank... it's basically a switl pot/surge tank at that point, but modification of the Fram filter to that configuration is VERY easy with some barbed fittings, a drill and a tap...

Yes, BRAAP summed up what I was getting at. If you talk with Ron at Isky, you will find that even they had different ramps. Their old early 70's grinds were basically just V8 profiles put on a Nissan Blank. This is why Racer Brown Cams were THE mod to have for serious racers in the early days. Eventually when he got his degree and started development work in the late 70's after his time in the service they totally changed the way they ground Nissan Cams to great effect. Even to this day, Raon will tell you they get "Grind X" from some builder, and it's a direct copy of one of their early grinds. Some grinders do an Assymetric Grind, some don't. Nissan DID. And for good reason, it allows more power (like Braap said) with less valve hysterisis. If you have duration at 050 on a symmetric cam, it's effective duration is actually quite a bit less than the same cam ground assymetrically. And valvetrain stability will be better with the Assymetric grind. To get the equivalent time 'under the ramp' as Braap put it on a symetric cam, your lobe profile simply would not be functionally possible, or would be very unstable in regards to valvetrain stability...let's not even get into lost power from heavy springs to control symetric ramps... You will never get the whole story from a cam grinder, you will have to buy it's product, test it, and then decide. I buy from Isky, frankly, because Ron knows his poop when it comes to Datsun Cam Profiles. When I asked questions of him, he didn't get offended but like any good engineer gave me the straight engineering analysis of why the grind he suggested would be better for what I was doing than what I had envisioned. I referred JeffP to him, with distinct instructions: Don't tell him what you think your ideal cam will be, tell him what you want and let him tell you and see if you agree with it. Jeff called me after their conversation and remarked that the duration, timing, etc were VERY close to what he thought he should have---though Ron's recomendation was more agressive on lift. Some guys will steer their conversation towards what you want to hear, but Ron won't. he has very specific ideas (backed up by experience) on what will work---and more importantly why. I didn't want this to sound like an Ad for Isky, but of the people I have talked to very few impressed me with their honesty and straightforward talk. Ron is one of those. And that means a lot to me. I digress...

Well, being JeffP made 415 to the rear wheels with those injectors, you may want to rethink that estimate. Up the fuel pressure to 4 bar, and that will do it. It did for JeffP.

Why is a full floating pin running without a bushing 'not an option'? Plenty of people do that, looking at it one way the bushing is nothing more than insurance, looking at it another way, the bushing is just something else to fail.

Kroil. In the orange can with black typeface. Miracle oil when it comes to dissolving rust-fuzz in cylinders and corrosion on aluminum of all sorts. Marvel is also good, but Kroil 'it's the oil that kreeps'---superpenetrant. Gets everywhere. But not nearly as cheap as Marvels. I scam if off my jobs, otherwise it's like $9+ per aerosol can!!!

USFRA Utah Salt Flats Racing Association. Holds monthly events, and has STREET CLASSES so you aren't buildinga totally tubed and parachuted unstreetable Bonnie-Blitzer...

I missed this first time round, but Drax's point of 1km/sec loading is what we do for the final pull on the Bonneville Car (more like 5km/s). We set it all up for power, then put the hella load on it as we know it will accelerate fine through the first mile, and be almost to top speed, within 5mph likely. But the next two miles on the course, we expect to pick up 1 to 2mph per mile (2-3Km/h in almost 15 seconds, hence the 5 km/s). It really kept us from getting any suprises like a fuel flow lean condition, wiers electrical harmonics, how it performed at the dyno is how it performed (altitude compensated) at the Salt. Very little known tuning trick, good that it was posted. How I missed this post, I'l never know. Worth the bump, IMO!

WOAH! 25 WATT? i think my pullup is a 1 watt. maybe 1/2 watt. You may not be doing much current limiting with a 25 watt resistor. I don't know that it needs to be that big to pullup the optical signal from teh dizzy.