Tony D

205 RWHP on an L20A, so Crank HP on an L26 should be, as stated above "No Problemo" And that's on the same dyno John C used dynoing his Rusty Old Datsun (Thanks for the recomendation, JC, they are a great bunch of guys!) So that's "West Coast" horsepower... how that equates to SAE East Coast Horsepower, I don't know... But the ITS Stock engine is a good point! And everybody knows a cam is good for at least 30 HP "to the rear wheels" John! ;^P

I got three combustion chambers with "broken electrode" damage. Trust me, it doesn't look nice and symetrical and round like that! LOL

Yeah, reading the PRI issue last year relating to "Marketing Potential in Coatings" I thought "oh no, this isn't good!" Guys start marketing stuff they get at jobber prices at markup with no time of effort expended on their part---pure profit on something with almost a 100% chance of NOT ever coming back as a warranty item! I limit my coating sources to well-known application shops like Swaintech. In the PRI article, you could see a ot of the business that had been in it for some time always stressed proper application (both in getting the surface prepped correctly, as well as choosing the right coating for the environment for which it is being chosen.) I know when I got ceramic coating applied to stationary ICE's, the results were startling---then again, this was almost 17 years ago now (early 1990's)---at that time ceramic coatings were exceedingly thick, and you had to ship parts to the manufacturer to get them coated as there were not a lot of places to get it done. Aerospace Black Art is what it was back then! We had very good luck in extending valve life on heavily turbocharged natural gas powerplants using sour corrosive feedgas, as well as lowering oil temperatures and decreasing fuel consumption markedly. I'm talking in the order of over 75,000CF/D per powerplant. Heat rate (power produced per BTU Consumed) on the engines went markedly better after coating. At the time, our generation curve was low, and we were pinched for feedgas, so we ended up doing all three generators with this coating. At the same time, the Splitfire plug was new on the market, and they were good for almost 50KCF/D on top of the other gains from the ceramic coating---but they just had their electrodes eaten up too fast to make them economically viable. The OEM was very interested in our treatments, but they didn't want to segregate their core stock between coated and uncoated cores. Ultimately they didn't incorporate it for this and the intial costs involved...then they phased the unit out of production. We started out wanting to decrease heat absorbed into our cooling water system, and ended up with fuel savings and closer firing pressures between cylinders as an unintended benefit. Of course we had a coating much different that what you had, it covered the crown of a Cast Iron Piston (about the only thing at that time that would take the application process!), across the entire combustion chamber, including the valve head (faces), and the exhaust port including the elbow where it attached to the exhaust manifold log. To this day, I think that application in that manner is probably the only way to get "efficiency" payback off coating. Like dale mentions, coating the piston tops buys you time only. And even Swaintech will say that as well. Like anything else, it's insurance. Actually, it may have saved you from burning the pistons instead of just the "sponging" you got. It's too bad the coating place couldn't give you feedback on what their thoughts on it's degredation are... normally there is a glass-beading texture under the heat-barrier ceramics. Some of this new stuff is really amazing at what it can do. But like all the EFI ECU manufacturers say about a WBO2 being hooked up to their systems "O2 Correction does not substitute for a properly mapped system"---I think with that much detonation (even if inaudible) you may want to pull some timing, or richen it a bit. The Methanol should take care of it straightaway, and I figure you will be able to run more advance on-boost then. Dyno time will be the best $$$ you have spent. Doing tuning on the street is hit-and-miss at best on the high end of the map. What you might try to look for is a Dynapack Dyno for your mapping. These are the units that bolt to your axles. The first thing I noticed when using one of those the first time was how QUIET it was in the car! No wheel noise whatsoever. I know when JeffP was on the Mustang, we heard Detonation outside the car WELL before he ever heard it (if he heard it at all). And when he finally did "think" he heard it on his final pull, it was a full 700rpms after the dyno operator and I heard it clearly---I was in the panic "CUT CUT CUT!" mode giving signals like crazy to back off it was SO bad outside. That Dynapack is neat. You hear everything BUT wheels. Transmission bearings, Axle and Differential stuff...really neat to do at least once. Good Luck at the dyno!

LOL. O.K. "I stand Corrected" BTW, 6035 Ft is different that 7000 feet, so giving for the 15.9% exaggeration in elevation applied to the 10K rpm redline claim, I see that it equates to a 8621 rpm redline. Which is at least somewhat believable. Dave Rebello would laugh in your face saying he ever said he made an 11,000rpm L-Engine. He gets those 320HP numbers at well below five digit engine speeds... ROMFALOL

Some who know me once commented "I can see you doing that"! And that's exactly what is required. I only took pressure plots using manometers and static pressure probes at several areas and with only the purpose of validating where I wanted to place a vent or opening for feeding air to something. That would be a nice countour plot to have. I used an epoxy putty to stick to the bottom of the hood (and cowl) to make the mounting points for the probes---it was easy enough to grind off afterwards and covering up the holes was easy enough as well. One thing to keep in mind (and I agree with MikeKelly's comments about listening to the pros) is that manu times the pros have a specific way of doing things that may be really accurate, or repeatable, but damned time consuming for a test like this. Setting up a grid of holes and epoxy stuck mounts pre-hosed onto a hood or other component may make for some quick changes short of making proper pressure probes and mounts. The pressures you should be dealing with shouldn't be high enough for you to worry about properly threaded nipples, or the like---I'm not advocating bubble gum and spit to hold the probes to the thing, but pretty close! Epoxy Stick is amazing stuff, and when put onto a waxed, painted surface pops off easy enough afterwards. Bondo is also another nice, machineable media that holds threads for nipples as well. I really wish I was closer. With 22 cars out back, there is a decently straight hood out back that just begs to be drilled and set up like this. Thinking along this line, does John Coffee have a rejected FRP example suitable for drilling? Then again, it all comes back to time and it's sounding like the plate is extremely full, so in retrospect, I'll shut up now!

I put an Autometer directly into the dash of my 260 by simply wrapping some electrical tape around the outer diameter and stuffing it rightly into place. I connected directly to the wiring harness using the original wire for the old tach. The ONLY problem I have had is that the Autometer Illumination works OPPOSITE the rest of the dash: turn it down low, and the thing is brilliantly illuminated, turn the rest of the dash up to bright using hte dashboard rheostat, and the tach is dark as a moonless night. Maybe someone can figure out that glitch, but I don't normally run the dash lights bright at night anyway, so it is all evenly illuminated on mine.

Actually, It does and it doesn't. It tells you it's either a 240 or 280. RLS would be a 260Z Given the number (over 156466 or thereabouts) chances are good it's a 280Z, but early model 280Z's would have similar Numbers as the early 240's, save they have a couple more Zeroes preceeding them. My 1970 is HLS30-06225, where the Six-thousand-two hundred and twenty-fifth 280Z would be HLS30-006225. But like he said, "the short answer is no"---you have to break down the vehicles by observed list of options installed at the factory and physical observation. Dropping the moustache bar or differential is not that big a deal to clean it out of accumulated sludge and positively identify the ratio---though as stated it's usually 3.545 in the 280's. Good Luck.

"I plan to have my car into a tunnel (Langley tunnel down in the Tidewater) prior to attempting my 200+ mph run. If I am incorrect about my designs, I would much rather discover it in the tunnel than while I am in the car!" Someone thinks alike! LOL I think that was a post somewhere else during "the dark times" when someone poo-poohed this idea. The thought of spending $3500 to make a run to 260mph in a tunnel to reveal any nasty aerodynamic gremlins that may creep up is cheap insurance! (compared to the cost of full prep, and then a crash) On a stock bodied car like I will have to drive, doing this before sinking all that money into the vehicle makes a lot of sense as well. Even to 170mph, the results will be interesting on an S30 (even though we know a 1976 2+2 will go at least 173.325mph with a G-Nose, Full Belly Pan, and blocked off Radiator Inlet opening...)

Nissan had FRP pieces for the 240, they accepted all the window mechanisim, and even had Perspex windows for even further weight reduction. I have no doubt those will accept the window mechanisims, they look to be knockoff Nissan Units. It would be nice if they showed a photo of the backside of the doors. I had to pass on a set of those doors in 1985 as they were $600 for the pair (including the "nissan" branded perspex rollup windows!) Yes, Yes Yes, I was in idiot, I know.... In 1991, another set showed up in Phoenix, I bought the car, but the owner kept the FRP Hood, Doors, and Hatch that were on the car at the time---all JDM pieces put on the car in 1976. Kills me to think of it to this day... They indeed are nice. Take the springs out of the hinges if you install them... Same for the gas strut in the back--the stocker used a prop-rod!

"Smaller is not an issue for me so I can always roll back the cam specs and do more testing." I wonder where that cam will go when JeffP "Rolls Back"? LOL

I'm going to have to butt in here and say something about coatings, in light of what or where this thread has turned. First, coatings ARE prven quantities. Ceramic Coatings in particular. Similar to the "splitfire spark plug arguement" there are documented testing that was done on fully instrumented engines that prove their efficacy. PROBLEM IS THIS: Many times people jumpp on the bandwagon and start slapping stuff on pistons as a revenue generator. Application of the coating is almost MORE IMPORTANT than the coating itself. No matter how GOOD any given coating is at this or that, if it is not applied correctly it will crack off and peel away in short order! This MAY be the case in Austin's engine, but for Austin to start making blanket statements that "ceramic coatings are worthless" based on anecdotal evidence found within his engine is just plain wrong. What may be more correct is for Austin to say the coating he chose was worthless, or even more correctly, the application may have been incorrect. I have Swaintech coated pistons in both our Bonneville Cars, and can attest to some oil temperature reduction, as well as protection of the piston head during some tuning miscues. Remember if you were detonating, you were tuned wrong, and there lies a source of massive and well over-specification pressures that can cause flaking of shoddily-applied coatings. All I'm saying is nobody should be making blanket statements based on this example. It's wrong, and FAR from scientific---there are MANY things wrong with this engine. Flaking of piston coatings is a symptom, not a cause!

Congratulations! This looks startingly like my first post in the old Yahoo Forums in 2003... (Ominous Music Plays) Continues on, I wish you continues success! "Great when a plan comes together!"

I, too will have to call B.S. on a large displacement (i.e. "stroker") L-Engine making only 230 at the crank at "10Krpm". As someone who has a 1998cc L20A that really revs to 9500 rpms, and makes 205RWHP @ 8750rpms, I find the claim of only 230hp to the crank not only ridiculous, but smke and mirrors. I am with JM in the request for a Dyno Sheet showing a real 10K RPM run. That indeed, is well underpowered for that rpm capability and displacement. Most JDM L24 Builders were making 100HP more than that to the crankshaft long ago, and with 1000 less rpms claimed. Our L28 non-stroker engine made 320 to the rear wheels at 8250, and it was only .040" overbored... "I Second the B.S. Motion!"

I'm having to agree with FOD, detonation would make something similar, but more looking like a "sponge" as shown in that last photo, and if it's detonating in #6, that severely, you would see similar formations, only less as dramatic in the other chambers as well. I think Austin has it about the bearing damage, the non-compressibility of the object caused an overload on the bearing, and collapsed the oil wedge. It was something hard, & symetrical. I was in a rush once, and lost an intake washer down the intake on my VW Bus, passed through, but to this day it's hanging on monafilament fishing string from the rearview mirror to remind me not to rush. What confounds me is the probability of something that small and round getting in there in the first place. Something like a piece of steel shot that was laying on top of the piston, and occasionally made it up to the rim before blowing out the exhaust valve... All that damage could have happened in cranking the engine initially, and once it fired, out the exhaust it went. Usually this severity of damage would be caused during slow mechanical cranking (like with the starter), as during runnning at even idle speed, the kenetic energy of the parts in contact would start breaking stuff, instead of simply making imprints. That Sucks.

SCCA? Heck, I'm in the SCTA, and run a Land Speed Racing Z-Car. Most of what anybody will be testing here will be totally illegal for me in the stock production classes I run. But for other classes, any reduction in drag will help me---wether what anybody uncovers in the testing to be beneficial would be legal in my classes will remain to be determined. I may "get nothing" out of the testing in that regard. But the curiosity over the myriad of "AERO" and "STYLING" Kits out there intrigues me: I seriously doubt the "AERO" kits sold will provide anything useful in the end. And that curiosity fuels my interest in the project. There is a LOT of that crap out there on the Flats---stuff people put on an S30 because it said "AERO PACKAGE" and went land speed racing. having seen how fast our car went, compared to many others with V8's (and much more horsepower) with these "aero parts" on them just has my curiosity piqued at really how bad these parts really are.... I have my thoughts along that line, and this testing will ultimately prove beyond a doubt if they really are "AERO" or just "STYLING" add-ons. What BJ is saying about the small BRE spoiler meshes really well with what we have seen first hand on the lake, and once and for all to have numbers put up there for everyone to see will at least give meat to silence ingorant theorists fed a steady diet of marketing pablum on what is functional and what doesn't work worth a sh**! To do it just to do it is reason enough... To know is better than not knowing. That sums it up for me! "Curiosity Killed the Cat, Satisfaction Brought Him Back!"

I have to say mine is a HF Cheapie, and I agree with the last comment about blade thickness, thicker blade seems to last longer, and cuts a LOT straighter than the original blade that came with it. Also agreed: starting slowly helps a lot. My favorite chop saw I missed out on when my buddy sold his welding shop---some behemoth that runs on three phase, and was belt driven. You want to talk about "hogging through metal"---man that baby would hog through anything, BUT QUICK! I would not call anything I do with my HF Chopper now "hogging" compared to that thing!

I agree, a metal cutting band saw is for fine cuts, a metalworker or chop saw will rough you in there from a 20' stick, within an inch or two, but after that band saw is the way to go, with final hand-fitting using grinders or files for proper gap alignment and width before welding. You can shim the stock to get it correct, and as with anything, patience---the more you push on it, the easier it is for anything to deflect. I see my chop saw jump almost 1/8" to the outboard side when it comes in contact with the metal.... it's something you just have to compensate for. Make that initial cut, and then pull the stock back straight so the wheel feeds straight downward. It's the initial deflection that makes it cut angled. So I cut 1/8" short, then as the blade jumps outboard (to my right)1/8", just as it scores the first groove in the metal (giving it a place to return to) I move the stock back 1/8" (to my left) and then the wheel feeds pretty much straight down since it now has a "starter groove" to go into, and it's now directly below the blade centerline so it doesn't deflect as it goes through the cut.

Yes, the HIF 6 is popular in Europe due to the adjunct idle circuit. It really makes tuning the power range of the carb easier when you aren't running pig rich at idle. The CFM rating on Webers is a bit confusing to most people. It all depends on where your main venturis are, saying this setup has "XXXX" CFM is really only a paper guess, as that number will change mainly on the main venturi size. And that venturi size dictates more where the power they will ultimately produce...in combination with the cam. Throw in ITB's and all of a sudden you chuck all the rules out the window. A set of 45mm ITB's can be a drivable streetable combination and make just as much HP as a set of 55 MM Webers, which would never be a streetable combination. The downfall of a carburettor is it, by design, must restrict the airflow in order to work! If there is no restriction through a carburettor, there is no pressure differential, and therefore no fuel being metered out to the engine! Take those same SU's from a stocker, bore them straight through after removing the suction dome, and you have two honking bores capable of flowing massive amounts of air compared with the standard SU. Injection, gentlemen....injection! That keeps things looking stock to the casual observer, but the flow increases to the engine are far beyond what the same bodies would be capable of in carburetted form! FWIW, was that CFM ratingfor the Rebello units per carburettor? They are vague on that point. Ultimately on the top end, the vacuum in the intake manifold will determine ultimate pumping efficiency of the engine, and therefore potential horsepower. Given 14.7 psia, and 9" Hg Abs on the manifold side, at 70 degrees, a 1.36" orifice should flow 365cfm....but that's a straight tube. See where I'm going with the logic? The stock EFI T/B flows almost that much, but does not require a 9" HG Differential in the manifold to function relating to atomization of the fuel...

"???? What's you're problem. I don't remember anyone saying that the bolts had anything to do with boost or hp. It's just a strength issue." Actually, it looked like you were implying boost or horsepower can be a factor in deciding wether or not to use 9mm bolts in that very quote. As pointed out, reversal forces at higher rpms dictate rod bolt strength. Boost and BMEP dictates compressile design of the rod beam. Most of the stock comp-prepped rods will not sustain prolonged usage above 100HP per cylinder as beam breakage becomes an issue according to the testing Electramotive did in the 80's on their turbo monster.

I'd second that, the L20ET cover is the same, and probably more available locally. Incidentally, there are some plastic valve covers out there from the JDM, for heat insulation. And odd quirk to be sure. But I don't think they were on Turbos...

I got one, but it's the IMSA Style, and I'm not parting with it. And like Stealth-Z mentions....I got it in Japan!

HIF8's? Do they make such an animal? They make an HIF6, which is similar to the 73/74 "Flat Top" carbs, except the nozzle height is adjustable with a screw on the side (much easier than the HS style nut under the body setup), with an auxillary air circuit for idle only. This makes for a carburettor that idles with proper A/F Ratio, but once you crack off the idle circuit, you run on needles that are much richer. Best of both worlds... There are people making over 220 HP with the Stock Hitachi SU's, the manifolds flow suprisingly well. With CV Carburettors, the power level is really determined by jet diameter (the 2" Jag Units use a .125" jet I think...) so whatever Pounds Per Hour you can flow through that jet, it the Horsepower capability of the carburettors. For all the talk of Triple SU's, every setup I ahve seen on L-Engines have been failures. Mostly because they use 46mm Hitachi Stockers. Way too much flow capability for the suction piston to lift and fully uncover the jet and give full fuel. For proper sizing, you really need 38mm SU's like on the SSS setup. Now you take some Fairlady Z L20A SU's, and stick three of those babies on a 3.0L Engine, you should have proper flow capabilities and jetting out of the box, with the ability of easily supplying 150 rear wheel horsepower easily, if not 180... Lot of work for little reward, and dubious functionality over a set of properly prepped twins---those 38mm units will ultimately only flow about what the 46mm Twins will flow...

You do what you want, you called me closed minded, and got upset over being told facts of the matter. Then you implied I didn't know what I was doing or didn't try hard enough. Do what you want, I'll not "shut you down" at all. Sorry I tried to explain my experiences, and you decided to be offended by it. I'm kind of with olderthanme on this one, except I'll say "spend your $$$ however you want". From this point forward, expect only glowing stroking psycophantic praies for anything you wish to accomplish. Dominate the thread? Hardly. Being thorough in my replies, absolutely. Remember my words so you can bring them back up later when you have done this all and proved us all wrong.

Seriously, Frank, the problems I have had with Megasquirt are NOTHING compared with what you go through tuning SU's! Seriously, I would trade electronic issues ANY DAY to trying to get fuel mixture correct in a peak band around best torque on some carburettors! With the Megasquirt, it was totally experimental. Carburettors have been around forever, and the tuning procedures are well known. Problem is, as many people say, they are little more than a "controlled vacuum leak". This is not what you need on a turbo setup. Carburettors work extremely well in two cases: WOT and Idle. Anything in between they are absolutely HIDEOUS at maintaining AFR, as well as being tunable. Would I trade my Blow-Through Mikuini Setup for an HKS ITB and Megasquirt Powered Setup: ANY DAY! And that's coming from someone who lived with the carbs daily for years. I had the Mikuinis running REALLY WELL, but to close your eyes to the shortfalls of carburetion, in light of the inexpensive EFI available today...well it's a bit closed-minded. If you want to build a period car, and relive the 80's, fine. Just don't think you will get something with ANYTHING LIKE the driveability of what is available with EFI today. There is a reason the OEM's have gone to EFI on Turbocharged cars. If they could have kept their eixsting technology, they would have!

I installed mine in the spacer between my 60mm T/B and the manifold. If this plate was made of Phenolic or lexan like pallnet was originally doing, there would be no heat-soak. I get some, but having the dual gaskets isolating it form the big manifold proper seems to help somewhat. I lined the sensor up inline behind the throttle shaft, so it's not getting hit with air directly, but turbulent air off the shaft at WOT. My cold-start hole is where my idle bypass runs back into...