JMortensen

I gotta agree with Jamie on this one. Pete, I think you're right that people can screw up a head, but if you look at what others have done right, don't try to reinvent the wheel, and don't go crazy with the grinder you won't be disappointed IME. I've just ported a couple of heads now, never flow tested any of them, but they certainly seemed more powerful when I was done. One, my Toyota 22re, with no other changes idled 2000 rpm higher when I fired it up and ran it again. Nissan, GM, Ford, doesn't matter who but ANY mass producer of vehicles isn't going to leave the chambers all exactly the same size, nor are the castings going to be perfect. There is room for improvement on just about anything coming out of a factory. Interesting stuff about the quench pads. I wouldn't have thought that they would be a source of detonation, but then I suppose when you run very high psi through on a turbo setup the rules of the game are bound to change.

Could be... he probably gets a buch of wannabe jackasses asking about his stuff so I'm sure stating the wheel widths with a regular spring setup saves a lot of explaining about what coilovers are and how they make more room for the wheel and tire.

Are you SURE??? I really doubt it's the frame you're hitting. I bet you it is the TC rod. I think John Washington is just incorrect about the sizes he posts on his site. The 940Z is supposedly a 3" flare in back IIRC, I've got an 8 and could maybe fit a 9 under stock fenders with coilovers. I'm thinking I could fit a 12" in the rear of the 940Z, but the offset would have to be just perfect.

[sarcasm]I agree. That's why I can't stand those friggin democrats. Did you know they raised more money then the supposedly big biz republicans and STILL lost the elections? That's what I call sticking it to the man![/sarcasm]

OK, how about we look at a different (more positive) poll from that bastion of conservatism, ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

Sounds like all the progressive springs I've seen on Z's. Usually the first 3 or 4 are totally bound IME.

So they have crack addicts in KS. I guess I had kinda figured as much already...

This might piss a few people off but in STOCK form a Z handles pretty poorly. A 944 handles pretty good out of the box. I'd give it to the 944. In stock form. Take them both to the nth degree and I think its REALLY close. REALLY close. My basis for this is that I've owned and raced Z's for more than 10 years, and I was a Porsche mechanic for a couple years. I've been to POC races, and I've seen a few (very few--like 2 or 3) 944T's that turn lap times WAY lower than I was able to turn, seen them beat factory Porsche Cup 911's and wacky 600 hp 911 Turbos with the giant double carbon fiber wing in the back, etc. But then I think the ROD probably would have taken most of those cars out too.

It all depends on the TIRES. I was running 9.5" slicks and an LSD and JUST got to the point where I couldn't mash the gas around every corner on the track. I realized the last time I went out that it was the first time I ever needed throttle control ever. I have about ~240 whp. If I were running skinnier tires I would have gotten there much sooner.

Love the lowered battery box. That's a really good idea.

WOW... check this one picture out! http://rally.subaru.com/rally/servlet/CarBuildingDetail?part=1&imageId=6 That's a lot of seams. That guy does some BEAUTIFUL work. Thanks for the link. That cage... OMFG...

You will need an R200 mustache bar if you don't already have one, the front companion flange or yoke from a R200 out of a 280, and the adapters from http://www.modern-motorsports.com. The diff rear cover with the fins won't fit with the existing transverse link, so you'll need to either make a new link that goes around the cover or you could swap the cover off of an R200 without the fins. That's all I can think of. If you have an R200 already then you just swap the companion flange and the rear cover and it is then a bolt in with the adapters from MM. http://www.modern-motorsports.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=56

My friend who runs his diesel on veggie oil is constantly saying the same thing. He envisions a small diesel running on veggie oil powering a generator which fills the batteries which drive an electric motor at every wheel. No transmission, just direct drive at the wheel. Kinda like a train in a way. The diesel powers the batteries, and the motor runs off of the batteries. The two don't need to be run together, and he thinks if he did it right the engine wouldn't even run most of the time. He wants to do this on his 4x4, and the only problem he says is that on the route to most of the trails he runs there is a solid 25 mile long grade, and with big tires and a heavy rig it would have to have a LOT of battery capacity or the engine needed to turn a generator large enough would burn a lot of veggie oil.

Hmm. I seem to remember only having to compress the valve springs 1/8" or so on mine, which wasn't that bad even with the aftermarket springs. Not sure why there would be a difference. Good luck putting it back together though.

Thanks for the compliment, means a lot coming from a quality fabricator. I need to shoot some more pics from below. The welds clearly went through the whole frame rail as evidenced from underneath, but it was a big PITA. Never again is my new motto. Or at least, never again without a rotisserie. Yeah I think I learned a lot about the car in general as you said I would. The whole rear of the car just isn't put together that well IMO. You've got so many seams and overlaps that it is scary, and once that dum dum comes out then it really becomes apparent that the seams aren't very tight, and it really makes you wonder about the structure of the car. My '70 might be worse than others, but some of my friends have taken to calling it the "Flexy Flier" so it obviously had issues. I've heard you talk a couple times about cars that had issues in the back, I remember once you were thinking that one car had lost the driveshaft, but I think that might be from the front diff mount and strap failing. That happened to a friend of mine and the diff tipped up and beat the snot out of the underside of the car with the rear driveshaft u-joint. Same thing happened to Mark Belrose. Can't say if that relates to your more recent 71 with the stress cracks or not. So far I haven't really found any chassis problems in my tub like torn spot welds or cracks, but I am doing the back, then I'm going to reinstall all the (new) suspension, then I'm going to strip the front and do it, so I still have a LONG way to go, plus I work like a snail which is why I don't wrench professionally anymore...

That is too cool!!! Sent him clear over the hedge!!!

1 has been answered. 2. Did you back off the lash adjusters before you pried the rocker arms off? Did you rotate the cam so that the lobe pointed up before you pried the rocker? Kinda doesn't sound like you did either. If you do back them off and move the cam so that it isn't compressing the spring then it isn't that bad to pry them on or off. If you don't then you really have to compress the valve spring before they'll move, and if it's already compressed because the lobe is facing down, then it's going to be a bitch. I had to do this a couple times while adjusting lash pads, and it really wasn't that bad. Sounds like you just missed a step in there.

That's why he was talking about installing the N42 valves. Basically he wants some stainless valves and can't find them for a P90, so he's thinking about modding the head to fit the valves by cutting the head and shimming the cam towers and installing the longer valves. All the geometry would be correct but this would raise the compression ratio quite a bit, not good on a turbo motor. And as J. Soileau 74260zt says, somebody has to make them for a stock length P90.

I used a 490/280 on the street for years in stop and go traffic with triples and a light flywheel, and no complaints. I think it is now a little small for my current usage. I've seen several people with the 460/270 who almost immediately think they should have gone bigger. The one variable I don't know is FI. If you are running stock FI you should look into the possibility that a larger cam might make it run poorly, not pass smog, etc. If you're running SU's or triples I would suggest the .490 cam. It's not that extreme, and IMO people tend to go too small on the cam in a Z.

The camber plates would likely be the same as the ones he's got for the Z right now. I'm curious to find out how good the struts are, what spring rates they can handle, etc. I know we get 240SX drifter guys saying they want 500 or 600 in/lb springs all the time, so the struts might be of that variety.

I like your front control arm turnbuckles. Is that 1" hex aluminum? Looks good, and easy to adjust.

I keep seeing this hybrid Accord commercial that gets like 37 hwy, and I think that that is REALLY unimpressive. I know, it has a V6, but it still seems unimpressive. And WTF is going on when car companies are touting 30 mpg on a super aerodynamic subcompact car? Seems to me my friends '85 VW Rabbit diesel got 45-50 mpg, and that was in '85. As I posted before on another thread, I put a cam and header and exhaust on my 2.4L Toyota 2wd truck and got it into the low 30's, and that's a pickup truck dragging around a windbreak behind the cab... I'm not one to shoot for mpg, but it really seems like doubling the mpg on these little commuter sedans should be easy to do. Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly, but weren't they were getting about the same mpg out of these same models of car when they were using carburetors and had much worse aerodynamics???

If it isn't a synchro problem lube won't fix it.

If you shim the same amount that you shave off the head, it puts the cam geometry back in the right spot.

Ouch!!! This was not the way to go. There were spots where grinding the top side and welding from the top worked just as I expected. More often than not it didn't work so good. I would start the weld just fine, then the frame rail on bottom just wouldn't be there (probably because of the curve of the rail and the fact that I wasn't trying to weld the edge of the rail to the floor) so I'd burn through to the bottom rail. I basically just sat there building up the pool so that it got back to the floor level, then continued on. Most of the time this went OK, but there were a few f-ups in there that I'm going to have to patch. Maybe someone with more welding experience could have dealt with these problems a little better, but this was not the best way for me to get this job done. I guess the only saving grace is that now I REALLY know that they're attached pretty well...