Warren

I got the picture to show up, but I can't seem to get the thumbnails to work... How do i get the thumbnails to work? Everybody else's but like 2 other people seem to have it down. A little assistance would go a LONG way. Warren

Which is the exact reason why I decided to go with only an 87mm bore. First off, if I could have done it with 86mm bore, I would have, but due to the fact of 139,000 miles on the original 86mm bores, my F54 was due for a boring anyway. Now I had the option of only going 86.5mm but since I was boring anyway, and only 1mm at that, and I had an LD28 Crank available, I decided to go to 87mm. Now I've seen others say that they had gone farther with other pistons and were having problems. I know of one person who went with an LD28 crank, cast 87mm pistons and L24 Rods, but they had to shave the piston tops. That put the rings too close to the combustion chamber for my likings and poses additional funds being spent. That in itself was enough to make me figure out how to use the L28 rods that I already had. From all the research I've done, I've found that there are a couple of ways to go 87mm without posing such potential problems, one of which is to use forged pistons. As another precautionary measure in an effort to prevent ring land failure due to higher combustion pressures in the combustion chamber caused by turbocharging a stroker, is to move the rings down the side of the pistons slightly. Another is to use a wider ring, which poses a slight problem if you plan on keeping the bottom ring above the height of the connecting rod pin on the sides of the piston. The calculations I've made and the parts I've chosen will give me the ability to use the LD28 crank, with L28 rods and custom pistons. Only going to 87mm bores, I'm not chancing weakening the walls as much as an 88 or 89 mm bore and still have room to do something with the block if I need to, should the unthinkable happen. This combination will stroke it from 2753cc's to approximately 2960cc's...closer to 3.0 Liters Again, if anyone is interested in this combination, or would like to get in on the custom order, which would save you $125 off of the set of custom pistons, PM or Email me and I'll give you all of the specifics. Warren

Actually if you were to bore the block to 89mm, you're going 3mm over stock, making the cylinder walls kinda thin. The F54 block has extra webbing between the cylinders to assist in strenght. If there was enough reason to cast the block with those extra webs, then why on earth would you chance boring to 89mm? Anyway, the setup I'm going with will be about as close to 3.0 liters as you can get without getting scientifically critical. It will be 2960cc's...and boring to 89mm's would put it right at 3.1 being 3098cc's... If you did that, then you would have NO further chance of boring the block again if something were to happen to the motor. All of the above numbers are from the chart that Jim Wolf Technology provided. Here's the LINK. Warren

It just so happens that I'm in the process of building one myself. Kind of a "while I'm at it" project that got WAY out of hand, and you guys are right, it IS expensive. It all started with the desire to fix an exhaust manifold leak caused by 2 broken manifold bolts. the foremost and rearmost on the head. After removing the head, because evidently the previous owner tried to remove the rearmost one and ruined the hole, I decided to go ahead and rebuild the head..."while I was at it". Of course I went overboard and replaced everything except the cam and rockers. Then came the block. Since I had the head off, the block looked like it needed attention too, due to aparently leaking freeze plugs. Well, as it turns out, unbeknownst to me, the #5 & #6 Piston skirts were in the back of the oil pan. Here we go again. Since I had to have the block bored and pistons replaced, and I knew where a perfect LD28 crankshaft was, I figured "while I'm at it", I might as well stroke it too. After doing alot of research on how to go about doing it right, and hearing alot of horror stories about previous attempts made by others, I decided to work out some figures and come up with my own combination of parts. Here is what I've come up with and am using in this build. F54 Turbo Block LD28 Crank L28 Rods - NOT L24 Custom Dimension Forged Ross Racing Pistons (87mm Flat Tops) Sealed Power Rings, 2mm 2mm & 4mm...Spaced and Moved down the piston slightly P90 Head and Nissan Stock Head Gasket There is alot of math and dimensions to work out in doing this, but "while I'm at it", why not...(got me again). Needless to say, the custom pistons have been ordered and will ship on March 1st. The piston design and specs were gone over with Ross Racing Pistons over a couple of hours on the phone and it was determined that, based on the calculations of the dimensions of all of the parts involved above, the compression ratio would be 8.31:1. That is just a tad higher than the previous calculations using the L28 Rods and LZ22s Pistons, which according to the chart provided by Jim Wolf Technology on the Z Club of Texas website, was a viable combination. It's been determined that stock LZ22S Pistons were not strong enough...the ring lands won't take the turbo charging. By the way, if you're interested, I need 1 more person to buy into these pistons to make it a group deal and all buyers save $125 off of the total cost of each set of pistons, pins and rings in the custom piston order. PM me if you need info. I've also been bitten by the non-programmability of the stock Nissan ECCS in the 82 ZXT and the desire to utilize the above listed motor more efficiently...so out it came, and "while I'm at it", I'm installing the SDS EM4-6F distributorless standalone system. Next is the turbo. I just got a wild hair up my wahzoo to do something about the little stock T3 that was on the motor. So "while I'm at it", I'm installing a new Turbonetics T03/T04E turbo also. When I bought the car last March, I opened the hood and much to my surprise I found it had an MSA Intecooler kit installed on it that was not advertised in the sale description. This was in good working order but it appeared to be a little small, so I figured, "while I'm at it", I'd upgrade it too. I'm going with a new 24"x12"x3" Hybrid Intercooler with 2.5" plumbing. Oh, and since the engine compartment was empty, I decided "while I'm at it", I'd take everything out and refurb it. The engine compartment was stripped of everything and re-painted. Every part, nut, bolt, washer and clip has been removed and bead blasted, painted or polished and is now sitting on the shelf awaiting the the engine reinstallation. There have been several other mods made to this beast such as Tokico Advance Handling Package installation, Custom Fuel Rail, Ford 42# Injectors, Non-EGR intake manifold, 240SX Throttle Body, custom downpipe and 3" exhaust, just to name a few of them. There are alot more...too many to list. Needless to say, this "while I'm at it" bug has infested my garage and it's a hard one to kill. After all this engine and compartment work is done, and the car is running, I get to start on the interior. Most of the parts are already here and on shelves as well. After that's all apart, the body work starts. Then it's going to the paint prison for a while and finally, I'll get to start the reassembly of the interior. Sorry for rambling, but I thought the stroker idea was something that I would throw out there and take comments on....since it was brought up. (And you thought bastaad525 posted LONG Stories...) Warren

Answered in your other post... Warren

According to the FSM EF & EC-78 The auxillary cooling fan (injector fan) is only supposed to come on under the following conditions: Coolant Temperature above 210 degrees and ignition OFF (Normally Aspirated) Coolant Temperature above 216 degrees and ignition OFF (Turbo Equipped) It is NOT supposed to be on when the engine is running. Turning the ignition to the ON position will turn the fan OFF. The fan is only supposed to run for approximately 17 minutes...then it shuts off. To test the circuit's operation, disconnect the harness connector of the water temperature sensing switch. (That's the one with the wire coming out of it under the top radiator hose at the thermostat housing, not the one with the bullet connector on molded in). Connect the lead coming from the harness (on the harness side) to ground...(that simulates that the water temperature has exceeded the preset value)...the fan should come on...until ground is removed or 17 minutes (I really hope it doesn't take 17 minutes to see whether or not the fan motor is running). If the fan comes on, the system is working properly. If the fan doesn't come on, test the fan's operation as below, as well as the fan motor timer unit, located above the fuse box. To test the fan's operation, unplug it and connect 12 volts directly to the leads coming from the fan motor. Hope that clears that part of your question up a little bit. Warren

That's not entirely correct. There were actually 2 different 720 truck engines and piston combinations. Below is a quick chart of the pistons that had 21mm piston pin diameters. Engine...pin height(mm)..piston diameter(mm)..application notes: L28..............38.1.......................86...................280Z LZ22S..........35.0.......................87...................720 truck 6/79 to 10/82 LZ22E..........32.5.......................87...................200SX 7/81 to 10/83 LZ24............34.0.......................89...................720 truck 11/82 to 10/85 KA24E..........34.0.......................89...................240SX Article for info I'm in the process of using the LZ22S pistons from the early 720 truck in a turbo stroker. I'm still researching the "Forged" pistons from the group buy in the past that was refererred to above.

In reference to #2, if you're referring to the stock head gasket, it is not 0.6mm thick...it's 1.25mm thick. If you DO deck the head, plan on shimming the cam towers the same amount or you'll throw your cam timing off slightly. I hope I read your post correctly. Warren

It's not that hard... Here are a couple of PS's that I've done. The S30 was solid orange and the S130 was solid dark gold. If you're still needing it done, PM or Email me and I'll see what I can do for ya. Warren

Got ya both on this one. I pulled up in front of an office building today that had mirrored glass on the outside...I saw a guy who looked just like me in a van exactly like the one I was driving...he was looking back at me... Sorry, couldn't resist...

"I did NOT have sexual relations with that man!."

I've seen the closeups of your trigger mount before and questioned it's rigidity then. Could you be picking up vibrations through the "stand off" type mount where the trigger is not as steady as it needs to be? That would cause problems with the ignition system, right? Just guessing here, but according to the SDS manual, it says to make the mount strong enough that you could pick the engine up by it (as stated on page 2 of the EM-4F supplement installation instructions). If you think I'm barking up the wrong tree here, please let me know and I'll shut up, but the plate that you have the trigger mounted on doesn't look quite solid enough to pick the engine up by. I'm NOT being critical here. What you have looks like it would work, and it obviously does, but I'm preparing to install the SDS EM-4F on my engine and was strongly advised by Ross at Racetech (SDS) to make the mount EXTREMELY strong. I don't want to seem negative in any way, but I'm not the only one who has mulled over the pictures for a while and wondered about the rigidity issue. Warren

I've only driven the car a total of 292 miles since purchasing it from a guy in Sarasota, FL and beginning the restoration... I've been real easy on the motor since I didn't know the condition of it to begin with. The skirt(s) pieces that I've removed from the pan had thick black gook caked up all over them and had obviously been in the pan for a while. After having located 2 LD28 Cranks and already having the L28 Rods my search is now for a decent set (that means affordable..heheh) of LZ22S pistons. I've visited a couple of sites that say that this combination will make the motor 2960cc's and should work fine. I'd like to find "forged" pistons since aparently the pistons are the only "non-forged" part in the block other than bearings. Just another "while I'm at it" (that usually means expensive) thing. Anybody else running this combination that could give some advice one way or another? UPDATE: I found "45" LZ22S pistons, at $47.90 each with rings and pins, unfortunately they're NOT forged. I just can't see throwing another $800 plus into this motor for forged pistons PLUS the overbore. I realize that its still got to be bored from 86mm to 87mm to use the pistons but that's ok, since it'll be "stroked" this way. I just spent $450 on the head with all new valves, springs, seals, etc. I'll give these a try and if they break, I'll do the forged routine in one of the spare engines I have in one of my parts cars. Would still like input from others regarding this combo.

Found this in the oil pan, been there for a while...it's 1 of 2 from #5 and #6...still haven't found the other one yet. Can you say "Time to rebuild the bottom end"? (The quarter came out of my pocket to use as a reference of size) Anybody know where to find a new set of dished pistons for an F54 block?

Just thought I'd chime in on this one since I've been doing the research too... To get a rough idea of fuel flow and horsepower available from the injectors, it's not hard to figure out. Use this equation: Number of Injectors X Flow in Pounds, divided by 0.55 (represents approx 85 % duty cycle)... i.e. Using Ford 42# injectors...which happen to be 418cc/min...you would get 42x6=252 ... 2520.55=458.18181... Therefore: Ford 42# injectors (418cc/min) would yeild a possible 458 hp @ 100% Duty Cycle...of course these numbers are RAW and not gospel, but they'll get you close enough. Hope it helps. For a quick reference chart, go to SDS EFI TECH PAGE Warren

Simple adjustment of the bumper shock length is all you need. To accomplish this you need to remove the bumper cover, and bumper core. This can be done as an assembly if you remove the 8 nuts on the back side of the bumper attaching the bumper core to the two bumper shocks. Don't forget about the turn signal connectors and the ambient temperature sensor for the A/C system. Once you remove the cover and core assembly, you will see 1 phillips screw on each bumper shock, looking from front to back. Slowly remove the phillips screw (the system is pressurized), collapse the bumper shock by pushing it toward the back of the car as far as necessary to make the sides fit properly. Replace the phillips screw. Test fit the core and cover till you get it where you want it. You may have to remove the phillips screw again and move the bumper shock more than once to get it right. Once you have it where you want it, replace the screw and permanently re-mount the core and cover, and re-connect the turn signals and sensor connections. Keep in mind, that after you open the screw and move them in, you now no longer have 5 mph bumpers. They didn't do much in the lines of protecting anything anyway. Since your bumper didn't fit right to begin with, someone else may have messed with the bumper shocks to get them out that far to begin with. The shocks were pressurized before they were put on the car at the factory and there is no way to repressurize the system. It is also advisable to drill a hole and install a bolt all the way through the bumper shocks now that they have been collapsed in order to avoid them from going in any further should you hit anything. Another alternative is to weld them in place, but the thru-bolt method should work just fine for you, especially since you just had the car painted and probably don't want to risk welding near new paint. Hope it helps, Warren

The Learning Channel (TLC) just played an hour long show on it. It's NOT built by Carroll Shelby, but it does have his approval. It is a working concept car. The show will probably be on again in 2 hours. Pretty interesting the way EVERY piece of the car is hand made (so to speak) one-of's... And at 81 years of age, give the old fart a break.

Shane, That's a nice intercooler, but not the same. Mine I believe is a little taller, and not quite as wide. This one says "HYBRID Super Intercooler" on the top, which will be the bottom when I mount it. And you're absolutely right about the hood tension rods. TRASH 'em. Since I've had the MSA/HKS Intercooler mounted in there before, the holes are already there, just need to make them a bit larger. The piping will run differently than what you have on your's Shane, and it might have to be mounted on a slant, instead of straight up and down, simply because of the K&N Conical filter. Guess you'll just have to wait to see the pics once it's mounted. BTW, the picture shows the intercooler upside down, the inlet and outlet are supposed to be on the bottom, since heat rises, and I'm trying to figure a way to mount it that way (with the inlet and outlet on the bottom). I'll have to give up having tow hook loops to do that though (Can you say, whoopty doo???) Warren

Pics of my old and new intercoolers. The old one has 2.5" in/outlets. The new one has 3" in/outlets. This should be fun to pipe in!!! Click here Comments welcomed. Warren

The numbers stamped INTO the key are the key code to the vehicle. If you'll look inside your glove box, presuming it's not been removed, there should be a white label with the same number written on it. This only applies to Nissan's made before 1993. They quit doing it in 92. Anyway, if you have that sticker there, and the dealer took the time to fill it out like he was supposed to, you'll have the original key code to your vehicle. Go to any automotive locksmith with that number, the registration to your car, and your drivers license, and he should be able to make a NEW key (NOT on an original blank though) for your car that should operate all of the locks...that is, of course, if they haven't been changed since Methusila(san) (sp) put them in way back when the car was made. That number can also be found on the passenger door lock, assuming it hasn't been changed either. Just thought I'd chime in here, as I am, afterall, an automotive locksmith. Warren

Heres one for ya...if worst come to worst, you could always do your car in the 2 tone Silver and Black, ZX Style, like this one. Don't get mad, it's just a suggestion. Colors can be deceiving...this car was originally solid orange...Ah, the wonders of Photoshop. Warren

Forrest, Perhaps if you broaded your horizons and look past the blinders, you might be able to see the other side of the story. It's not that the people who have to work on these vehicles are trying to get the government to force manufacturers to give up sole ownership of anything. I think you're stuck in the dark ages when I hear you say things like that. The point of the entire bill is just as outlined. To give the people the right to have their vehicles serviced where and by whomever they choose. That is the basic idea here. It has nothing to do with avoiding monopolies or anything such thing. It is however, merely the opportunity for small businesses to stand up and say, "Hey, what about us?." It's a vicious circle, to tell the truth. If the small businessman, who is also a consumer, paying taxes and purchasing the manufacturer's products cannot afford to buy those vehicles, because they can't make any money servicing the vehicles, it becomes a lose-lose situation for the manufacturers themselves. On the other hand, if the manufacturers make available the information required to service these vehicles, they may lose money to the competing small businessmen, while they themselves make money on the front end of the deal by still being able to sell vehicles in the first place. IMHO, it's not a case of "cutting off your nose, dispite your face." It is more like creating jobs, maintaining free enterprise, and protecting the consumer, who ultimately purchases the product of the manufacturers, from being limited in their choices of where to have their vehicles serviced. That is all. As far your basic question is concerned, I don't believe the intent of the bill is to force anyone, manufacturer or aftermarket service provider, to sell their tools or information at a dictated price. If you'd ever been involved in negotiations regarding property rights, you'd know that. The intent of setting a standard "fair" price for the information and/or tools is multi faceted. 1. To make it affordable for small businessmen to stay competetitive while still having access to the information and tools to perform their jobs. 2. To stop the manufacturers from railroading their way along in the process of trying to avoid their vehicles from being services at the independent shops, by setting their prices for this information and tools so high that the every day businessman has to mortage his home just to stay in business. 3. To set a standard of how to regulate such situations which may arise in the future. I could go on, but I've been long winded enough. In closing, I would ask you to put the shoe on the other foot and look at it from a different perspective, as a small businessman who could possibly lose his livelihood due to practices of large companies of which he has no control. Respectfully posted, Warren

Here Forrest, Since you think it's not fair, and it's not, please see the link and read all about it. You may be surprised to see the entire contents including the highlights of minutes from some of the meetings and the concerns shown by whom. Click here Not nitpicking, just providing another viewpoint and alot more of the whole story. Warren

Tim, I whole heartedly agree that vehicle manufacturers SHOULD be required to warrant the emissions related parts of their products for at least 5 years. As far as the key and/or security issues are concerned, if you read the bill, in it's entirity, you'll see that there are provisions being considered to cover just that concern. Believe me, if it weren't for the security issues, this bill would have probably already been passed. The insurance companies and their lobbyists have alot to do with the postponement but are looking into ways to help this along. After all, it's the insurance companies and their lobbyists who are mostly responsible for the mandated transponder/immobilizer utilization in today's cars. They've got alot to lose if thesome of the information is made available "unrestrictedly" to the public. There are specific guidelines in the bill for controlling access to the information. It should be restricted, and once the information is made available, access to it will have to be strictly regulated. That's one of the main concerns of the manufacturers as well. Thanks for your view. Warren

Being directly involved in the aftermarket automotive service industry, and being aware of HR 2735 for quite some time now, not to mention following and taking part in some of the meetings regarding the bill, I think it's been WAY too long in coming. Some of you may know, that I make my living as an Automotive Locksmith. That being said, this bill is BADLY needed by persons like myself as well as the consumer. If you read parts of the bill, you can see how my industry is affected by the manufacturers "holding back" the information required to service their vehicles. Consider these scenarios. 1) You have recently purchased a vehicle. You are required by law to have emission inspections performed on this vehicle. You take your car to be inspected, and for some reason, it fails. The nearest dealership is either across town from your location, or just plainly inconvenient to where you live. So you take your vehicle to your favorite mechanic and are told that you have to bring your car back to the dealer to have repairs made so your vehicle can be made to pass this inspection, simply because of some so called "proprietary" information. Not fair to either YOU, as a consumer, because you may chose NOT to have your car serviced or repaired by a "Dealer" for one reason or another, or the Service Facility of your choice, due to the lack of information required to service your vehicle being provided to them by the manufacturer. 2) You lose your keys. You know that many locksmiths make automotive keys, so you figure no big deal, I'll just call a locksmith. Then you're informed that because of that so called "proprietary" information you must return the car to the dealership to have keys made. Again, not fair to either YOU, as a consumer, for the above reason, or the Locksmith, for not having access to the information required to generate a new key (key codes) or program the transponder in that new key to your vehicle. (Almost ALL new cars are transponder/immobilizer equipped). Now, you have 2 simple scenarios that restrict your right to have your car serviced where you prefer. Tell me that's fair? If you read the bill, you'll find out that the EPA is directly involved in this bill as well. The reasoning behind that is because of something included in the following scenario. Your car's ECU fails for some reason. It has to be replaced. You would like not to have to replace it with a "NEW" ECU from the dealership because most of them will cost over $2000 to purchase. You find a mechanic or other source (junkyard) who has access to another "USED" ECU that would work for your car. You opt to have him install it for you or you do the swap yourself. Then you find out that the ECU you installed will not work for your car afterall, simply because the transponder key information from the vehicle it was installed in is stored in the ECU and only the dealership has access to the tools and/or information on how to clear and/or reprogram the ECU. Back to the dealership the car goes... Where the EPA comes into play, is that if the vehicle cannot be started, it cannot be serviced to make sure it complies with the emission standards set by the EPA and individual states. In other words, if you can't start the vehicle, (because of the lack of an operational key), you cannot check it for compliance. That in itself is enough to make a bill like HR 2735 worth the effort. It's NOT that the aftermarket is trying to "hurt" the dealerships and/or the manufacturers. In a way, it's simply that it is bordering on "restriction of trade" laws and putting the little guy (your favorite service and repair facility AND the locksmiths) at a disadvantage. It's YOUR right as a consumer to have your vehicle serviced where you prefer. If you cannot, then YOU are at a disadvantage simply by owning that particular vehicle. It's plainly obvious to see that this legislation has been and will be in the future NEEDED. Just an observation folks, no flaming intended or expected. I'm off my soapbox now... Warren Discon, Owner Custom Lock & Key Marietta, GA