Gollum

I think I was only 16 when I joined HBZ. I'm still trying to convince my dad to let me teach him how to do his own oil change. Meanwhile I'm swapping heads on my turboZ... There's a big difference between wanting to get out of mom and dad's house, and wanting to get away from your parents. In my mind you're never too old, or too cool to spend some time with your parents, as long as the relationship is healthy. Then again, I think most of the people I hang out with are over 40.... So I might be biased.

Here's some night shots I had fun with recently on vacation. Hope you enjoy.

Not, those never made it to the states. I don't think many opel cars under any GM badge ever did.

Not always the case though. Fabrication if you have the tools is mostly just labor intensive. Modifying OEM parts to work can costs even less. Look at the L31DETT by 1 Fast Z. He claims (and I believe him) a very absurdly low cost for his build. He spent more on his turbos and EFI than he did building the head, intake, and exhaust by my guess. But if you were to count his hours, his head would cost more than most people's car on here. A 2jz will always cost the going rate a 2jz. Custom fabrication is all in the skill and time of the fabricator. So you have to run external cooling and head lube, so what. It's not like that hasn't been done before. Complicated? Yes. Justifiable? Maybe. I'd really like to see this project done though, because it still sounds interesting. I'm also still wondering if running completely external cooling and oil is necessary, or if just some simple rerouting might turn out better, and allow use of a stock water pump to simplify things.

Well, some people are funny. Others are stupid. Then there's those people that are so stupid it's funny. I've seen SEVERAL 280ZX cars with generic V6 badges. I even had a guy who wanted to buy one of my 81's and was staring at the engine right in front of me while on the phone with a friend say "yea, it's a V6".....

A flat plane V12 would be... interesting to say the least. If I was going to make a multi-engine V12, I'd use the VG motor. Can anyone say VG60ET? Only using two VFR800 engines only gives me 1.559 cc's, but if you think about it, a Honda B16 turbocharged makes PLENTY of HP for a 2,300 pound car and those only rev to 8k. Another factor to consider, is that two of these engines will weigh at LEAST 340 pounds, possibly as much as 400. Putting another in the engine bay adds another 180 pounds or so, and that much farther forward. Generally this isn't that big of a deal in a Z, but I won't have a transmission in the tunnel, which means I'm actually removing a ton of weight from the rear tires. So I agree a V12 idea would be neat, but I just don't see myself doing it. I'd sooner consider running dual inline 4 engines from a bike for an inline 8.

I was wondering if we'd get a report from you yasin. I was worried that on a lowered car that it might require some rolling. How'd you go about fixing clearance issues? When we had them on my ZX with stock suspension parts, they stuck out a taste and then just tucked in nicely as the suspension traveled. We also never had the chance to try it on a ZX that was drivable, so we never got to really settle the suspension as much as we wanted so were unsure how it'd pan out. At any rate I'm glad you got them working for you. Car looks great, as always, by the way.

PanzerAce, if you haven't already, check out my V8R1600 thread. You might like it. If all goes well I could realistically have a 400 crank HP 11,750rpm flat plane beast for under 5k, and that's including swap costs. It might be considerably less. but I'm basically doubling the current foreseen costs. You'd have a hard time building a 400hp L30ET for that price I think. I'm also interested to hear a price on this engine though. The price tag on the Hartley is high, but expected. Unless they're planning on moving a ton of these, then I'm betting they'll be costly as well. Call me picky, but I'm kinda disappointed that it's a 80 degree. Hartley is a 75 degree, and it certainly lost that Ferrari sound because of it. It doesn't sound like a dual plane crank V8, but it has a roughness that certainly it's a pure 90 degree flat plane V8 (like Ferrari)

A dual plane crank is also known as a 360 degree crank. It might not mean having a fire every 90 degrees, as in the case of a V4 that's impossible, it just means that it has multiple planes and therefor isn't a "flat" crank. Oh, and regarding the VMAX engine, the info I'd found in the first place was wrong. ALL Vmax engines are flat cranks. They're a 70 degree block design though, not a 90 degree, which is what gives them that slightly different sound compared to the VFR engine, or other 90 degree V4 engines. A 90 degree V4 like the VFR will sound rough at lower RPMS but once it gets going fast enough it smooths out. The VMAX engine never does smooth out, therefor resembles the sound of a crossplane V8 much more than the 90 degree V4s.

Yea, alloy block SBF's start at like $6k with DART don't they? Ouch.

I find it hard to believe the XK8 or XKR for that matter didn't have a manual offering. There's GOT to be a manual transmission that bolts up to the sucker with the right bellhousing. I can definitely attest to the Ford buyout jag reliability improvement. One of my friends I grew up with, his dad owns a european auto repair shop, and has been doing GOOD business for decades. He's working on the 70's and 80's jags constantly. Even the later pre-ford jags still have problems that cars with their miles just shouldn't. Once the started having Ford owned power trains the story changes a bit though. Most of the things he ends up repairing on newer jags are non-engine related, or just plain maintenance items. They still have problems with anything that says Lucas on it....

Ok, so I took quite a bit of flack at the most recent BBQ that I (really stressing that I there) put on. I've been toying around with an idea, not like I'm REALLY going to do it this week, year, or decade, but as a possible project. I'm addicted to figuring things out and sometimes need a break from trying to figure out my woman, so engines are a good cool down. So here's the scenario, take two Honda VFR800 02'+ engines, and mate them together to creating a flat plane crank V8. Why? 1. Sound. Flat plane sound rules all. Some might not agree, but this is subjective and I'm allowed my opinion. 2. Lightweight HP. This combo would be well under 400 pounds for both engines AND transmissions. 360 pounds is my estimated wet engine weight. 3. Uniqueness. A Z that makes THAT sound will turn heads, and keep people staring for quite a while on the work done. 4. Cost. I'm predicting the cost of this engine setup to be well under HALF what ANY other person will spend making a flat plane V8 out of anything commonly available. IF you can get a crank made for under 2k you'll still be spending money on a custom crank, and in order to make up even HALF the difference between most motor's redline and this motor's redline will cost big time. Let's not forget you'll most likely need different pistons and rods to match with that crank.... Why NOT to do this: 1. Not a ton of power. Without force induction we're looking at around 200 crank HP if things go well. Without rebuilding the engine for force induction the limitations will be around 400 crank HP, which is plenty imo. 2. Time consuming. So what... if I have another drivable Z I won't care how long it takes. The longer the better imo. 3. Fabrication work. If this is a problem for you, why are you on hybridZ??? 4. Silly engine/displacement/etc. If this is really an arguing point for some of you, get a life. Some people think a SBC in a Z is silly, and TOO MUCH displacement for the car.......... WOW.... Ok, onto the good stuff. Backround on the engine: The VFR is a 90 degree V4 engine 782 cc with bore/stroke of 72/48 mm. It's liquid cooled, oil lubricated (wet sump) and has a block intergrated ultra close ratio 6 speed transmission. Shifting is sequential, and clutch is hydraulic operated. Clutch is a multiplate wet setup. Crankshaft has two journal locations, had the engine has a firing pattern of: (degrees noted are degrees between cylinder fires) 1 - 180degrees - 3 - 270degrees 2 - 180degrees - 4 - 90degrees - 1 Stock compression ratio is 11.6:1 EFI is Honda PGM-FI Engine uses an electric starter Onto the meat: Now, as for the timing in a dual engine setup. You can't get a balanced Ferrari firing pattern without just a tid bit of work, but it's not much really. If you stack the motors together, to resemble a V8, you'll have a front and a rear engine yes? Take the rear engine's left bank, and advance/retard the camshaft 180 degrees. Then rotate the crankshaft 180 degrees backwards, or 540 degrees forward. This WILL give you a Ferrari firing pattern. There's actually a couple different ways you could configure these engines and still get a perfect LRLRLRLR firing patter (left bank, right bank). I'd originally considered converting to a convenstional RWD transmission, but the reality of getting a close enough ratio transmission to USE the 11,750 redline of the engine and still drop gears above vtec is just plain EXPENSIVE. I'd have to be going with a custom ultra close ratio transmission, which would end up costing more than the engines, easily. So I started the work of pairing the transmissions (in my head). I'd thought that it made the most sense, since the primary shaft of the transmission protruded out both sides of the block, to have the shaft machined to accept a slip yoke shaft since the output was a toothed gear just like any other transmission. The only difference is that it's taken up with gears for the sprockets, instead of mated to a driveshaft. But.... I think I found something cheaper, easier, and all around makes a bit more sense. Using Chains. Using a chain would allow me to use a 100% stock motor with no modifications other than machining the coupler for the crankshafts. To explain how I'd do this I first need to explain the mount setup. I plan on running a full cradle, not on the engine side of the mount bushing, but on the engine side of the mount bushing. This will allow me to SECURE the timing of the engines together and make sure the engines don't move separately. The cradle would have two bars/beams, one on each side, with a connection piece going between the engines to give more rigidity to the cradle. So off the cradle, I'd put a shaft mounted on the transmission side of the engine, hung on high speed bearings that can take the maintained high speed loading of an engine. On this shaft would be three sprockets. One for each transmission output sprocket, and one in the middle, between the engines going towards a lower hung bar on bearings just under the oil filter of both engines. The secondary bar will sit on the side opposite to the transmission, and both bars will be securely mounted to the cradle, so the slack can't adjust with engine movement. Obviously adjustable sliders on the mounts would be a necessity to allow for chain installation and expansion adjustment. The reasoning for moving the energy to the lower shaft would be to get the output closer to the center of the engine, to allow the engine to sit close to the center of the engine bay without the driveshaft aiming way out to the side. This lower secondary shaft would have the output for the driveshaft, and could even be machined to fit the OEM nissan yoke, to make for a 100% stock install, if that's what I wanted. Ideally an aluminum shaft would be in order, as with this low torque engine, every pound saved in rotating mass would be worth it. So that's about where I'm at. If I where to do this for real though, I kinda already have the rest of the Z build rough drafted on paper. Goal weight would be 1600 no gas, no driver. That might seem impossible, but i think it is. This wouldn't be a street driver (though I plan on it being registered), so it won't have luxuries. I'd probably run a smaller fuel cell, somewhere around 10 gal. R180 3.364. I'd convert a subie CLSD R180 if I can. I think there's a year with the same spline count (27 right?) No side windows most likely. Door skins only, race cage. Rear glass would be lexan. Whole front would be composite. I's really like to make a one piece front end that pivots forward, like a triumph spitfire or daytona coupe, and tube frame the front maybe. Brake rotors would be kept relatively small, as I would plan on running a 15" rim max, 14" if I can make it work. Might consider a 225 wide tire, but would most likely stick with a good 205. Might consider the subie rack conversion. I figure with even a 1800 pound Z, and 150+ real rear HP, and 205 wide tires, the thing will move pretty good. And the sound.... Oh gawd. I also doubt that I would leave it NA for very long. I'd want to start out NA and get it proven working and on the road/track, but in the end it would get two turbos. I'd even build the first headers to accept turbos, and make a J-pipe to mid-pipe setup, so that once I added turbos I just make a new J-pipe. If that were to happen I'd be shooting for around 300-320 wheel HP, which should be attainable with custom EFI programming and ethanol. So yea... it's a work in progress. I've got a thread going on a VFR board, those guys are awesome and have already been a big help. SOOO much better than OTHER honda boards...

The V-Max has a 360 degree crank, so it won't have that unique V4 sound, nor would it ever work for combining two like I'm researching, to achieve a flat plane crank sound. I'm going to be starting my own thread in just a moment if you sit tight... EDIT: I'm sorry, I've found myself wrong. There HAVE been flat plane cranks for the V-Max, but I haven't figured out which were are weren't. It might be a case of displacement, as with most bike engines.

I'm sooo glad to hear the report about getting to take your dad out. That's awesome man. I'm stoked.

None of which I disagree with... Oh, and if you want a rotary in a Z, Aux is trying to sell his engine, which is pretty much ready to go from what I understand, mounts included.

I think your intentions for this project are perfect though. Going all out on something so experimental seems risky. I've always been a fan of progressive projects as long as you don't have to backtrack your money too much, redoing what's already been worked on. Plus keeping the head stock for now gives others interested a ballpark number to expect for the effort put into it. An if you can REALLY get the whole project done for less than a port job on a L series head, then that means it's also cheaper than swapping in some of the common DOHC inline 6 engines available, which actually makes it look like a promising budget performance project for those willing to put forth the effort. I'm more than anything else interested to see how everything buttons up once it's all in the engine bay, if use of unmodified manifolds work etc etc. Keep the project rolling though. I think it's safe to say you have the attention of a lot of people, nay sayers and those cheering you on alike.

I wasn't intending to look like I was getting hostile, just wanted proof as to why my comment was so "off base" that it wasn't even worth "correcting". I wasn't trying to say a piston moves faster/slower than a rotor, just stating that many see rotary engines as "high rpm" and in one sense they are, their "crank" eccentric shaft moves very fast, I was just noting that the rotor itself isn't moving at those speeds like many out there think. Though I for one, not a rotary expert, would be interested to hear the actual apex seal speed in ft. per sec. at 9,000rpm. I honestly don't know. I never meant to be making a anti-rotary post, nor an anti-piston post. My post was much more about the wear factor mentioned, and how I find it relates to RPM, or the overall speed of moving parts. I was showing that in a piston engine seeing high RPM, you generally reduce the stroke to keep piston speed down, while to achieve high RPM in the rotary engine the rotor itself is "slowed down" much like running a lower stroke. The main difference between the two, is that if you slow the rotor down more in relation to the eccentric shaft then you're also lowering your ignition events per rotation, whereas in a piston engine if you slow the piston down by reducing stroke, you still have the same number of ignition evens per rotation. Though in a piston engine no matter what increase in RPM means increased work for the valvetrain. And as my previous post had started: The two are almost impossible to compare.

Then please tell me how I'm wrong. It takes 900 degrees for a rotary engine to complete a "cycle" but RPM's are still measured the same as a piston engine. You can see it clearly in this animation that the eccentric shaft is moving FASTER than the rotorL They even state in this video by car and driver magazine, that the eccentric shaft rotates three times for every rotation of the rotor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGrD7FTFLJc So please, tell me how I'm so wrong you just want to give up, or how this is some misconception that even big name magazines don't get it.

How'd this thread get so invloved in rotor talk? Oh well. Lets not forget that it's extremely hard to ever compare a rotary engine to a piston engine. Even RPM's are completely different. The eccentric shaft is internally geared, so the rotor is never moving as fast as people imagine, but it's still putting out as many fires per 720 degrees as a 4 cylinder in a 2 rotor configuration. Bizarre? Ya bet. And the durability, ability, longevity, etc of a piston engine at any RPM comes down to design. Motorcycle engines are made to hit well over 10k all day long, and last reasonable lengths of time considering the RPM, by using very oversquare designs. I was actually reading a paper by ducati the other day talking about how as the years have progressed their bore has gotten larger and larger while their stroke shorter and shorter in order to accommodate higher and higher RPM, and subsequently more HP. Motorcycles have more wear issues in the head, valve timing system, pumps etc, than they do in the pistons and rings themselves (depending on what engine we're talking about here). Some say that even ducati's factory crank balancing is far from perfect, thus there is even more wear longevity to be had by have the crank rebalanced. I guess my point is that any engine can reach insane RPM if built for it and any engine will have wear problems when you exceed it's physical limits. Just talking like this though sure makes me want to build a 9k+ rpm L24

Now that I've thought about it, your right. FWIW the RB had a lot more meat in the pototype stage than the RB-R because they just added mounting meat in order to gain the offset, we asked for them to add the space on the lip for the RB-R, and I don't think this was ever corrected for the RB, due to the fact they would have had to make a new mold. There should be plenty of meat to get almost any offset on the RB if this where unchanged. Try to find someone who bought to RB's and ask them about it. Many people aren't following this thread anymore.

To match a 17x9.5 -6 you would have to ADD material to the current group by rim, not grind away more. The 9.5 wide is a 17x9.5 -19, so to reach -6 you would need about a 13mm spacer.

Almost enough to bring a tear to man's eye. 25psi does seem a little low, but I'm not one to know for sure. What weight oil are you running? I can't wait for more video. Maybe I need to make a trek out there this week to get a clip of it riding down the street or something.

That's a good point tony, and it's been taken. I definitely agree demand is a huge part of it. Your post also reminds me about how there's more performance mods for 03-04 cobras than there are for all 99-04 GT's it seems. Sure they sold a "decent" amount, but they're still a limited production car.

No, I'm talking about the Honda VFR motor, in their VFR800 sport-touring bike. Honda makes a larger displacement V4 engine that I've looked into, but the crankshaft is a 360 or dual plane design. The VFR crank is a 180 or flat plane design. My cost estimates are looking better and better the more I research it. Still a long time down the road until I do it, if at all. I'd love to see someone else pick up the idea.