pparaska

I've noticed that the unread function isn't reflecting my actual read/unread status for posts as well. It does sometimes, but it seems like if the cookie logs me off, the posts get marked as read when I haven't actually read them. BTW, which option are we using now (1,2,3)?

Bob, those flares look great! I love the paint too!

Lewis, I believe there were other people in that thread (all, see the thread here) that were the real culprits of not "sticking to the facts". Just read SuperZ's load of BS at the end - John got fed up with all of the nonsense in that thread (I did as well), and decided that SuperZ's BS post with tons of incredible untruths was the last straw. SuperZ wasn't the only one not "sticking to the facts" though. Please don't feel like the chip on the shoulder is needed. Did you happen to weigh the car before the swap?

Well, it's a idea that has been proposed by people in those "302/327s rev quicker threads" - that the power production does more to accelerate the car than the inertia of the engine does to hold back that acceleration. I'm not saying it's a totally correct way to look at it, but it seems like a valid theory to me.

Yes. But then since you are part of the expanding universe, it would not seem to be expanding faster than light. I thnk the difficulty in picturing this is that when you think of the universe expanding, you imagine that observable things like particles, etc. would be moving away from each other. The point that Scott brought up is that the yard stick you'd use to measure the distance between things would be expanding as well, at the rate that the universe was expanding, so your measurement would show no change. Well, I think that's what Scott meant.

No cry, no foul. It's cool. I just didn't want to be taken the wrong way. I think 4cylinder engines have there place, but I would go with a turbo or supercharged 4cyl if I put one in anything over say 2300 lbs for a "fun" car. My comments on that were not directed at you. I think the original thread starter needs to really do some research on what a horrible, unstreetable beast a NA 500hp 2 liter 4 cyl would be like in a street car. Good comparisons are not as easy to come by as some might think. Weight and driver talent need to be very similar, and gearing needs to be optimized for each engine. Then you can make a decent comparison. It's not so easy to find two cars with those similarities, etc. Well, rotating mass has some effect, or oval track and road racers wouldn't be going to all the expense of low inertia flywheel, clutch, pressure plates, etc. So the effect of 8 pistons versus 4, etc. is not inconsequential. But if you think about the differences the two engines (NA 4 cylinder vs NA 8 cylinder) have in available horsepower across the useful powerband, with optimized gearing, the inertia of the shortblock moving parts is secondary.

What do you mean you can't log off? If you click "Log Out" at the top right on the dark menu bar at the top right of the screen, it doesn't log you out? What do you mean by "I just keep accumulating posts"?

How about this update for the no replacement for displacement saying: "There's no replacement for the product of (displacement) times (boost pressure)." What I mean is displacement(1) * boost pressure(1) = displacement(2) * boost pressure(2) Engine(1) has boost pressure(1), Engine(2) has boost pressure(2) If all else is equal, they will put out very similar peak power. But peak isn't EVERYTHING. What I was getting at was that if you start out with a little engine, you need to boost it to make power. No problem with that. But if you read my post closer, you'll note that I added (sic NA displacement) to that saying. I think it's really crazy to ask a 2 liter NA engine to give you 500 hp and expect it to be anything close to streetable. So don't take my "no replacement for displacement" as a bash against smaller engines with boost - I TRIED LIKE HELL to make it clear I wasn't doing that!!! As far as your Camaro vs Honda story, the Camaro was probably over 1000 lbs heavier. I seriously doubt "rotating assembly" mass, inertia had much to do with that. Search on the forums - there are a few threads that debunk the "327/302 rev quicker than a 350" stuff. Again, I think the real issue was probably the Camaro vs Honda weight. I agree the 2100 lb SR20Z 400hp Z will give quite a few NA V8 Z's a run for their money. But many NA V8Zs also have a full interior... Amir's car is very impressive - but it's closer to a stripped out Honda than many street Zs are, IMO. He did that on purpose, I understand that. But I'd want any race between his car to be against a similarly equiped lightweight 240Z with a V8. Aluminum dash, stripped interior, etc.

Thanks, Scott - great explanation. I especially like the "you can't observe from outside the universe" part

Dale, I'll wager that the speed of light and just about any issue non-physicists can come up with have been very seriously looked at.

Yes, I understand those bending loads are low. The real issue for rod material failure (as opposed to rod bolt failure, which I agree is more likely in many cases) is the case of compression loading on the rod beam, and the issue of buckling failure, not bending of the rod from the (relatively low) bending loads I mentioned. The answer I'm still looking for is for the same weight of the beam section for typical I and H-beam rods, which has a lower critical buckling load level? I believe the failure is probably more from local buckling of the flange and web, than from an overall "column" buckling failure.

Grumpyvette, I fully agree the compressive and tensile loads are large. Note I said BENDING loads when I named the bearing and pin friction and rotary inertia. I then went on to mention compressive loads as they relate to buckling. I agree with the rod bolts being the failure point. I was questioning only the part I quoted which only dealt with the failures in the rod material during compressive loading, as it relates to I vs H beam.

Why the hangup on a Toyota or Nissan NA 4 cylinder? Do you realize that to get, say 240 hp out of that, you'll need to really rev it high to get to it's peak hp, like 7800rpm? Do you realize that if you design and engine like that it will have no really decent torque (like above 200 or so lbft) below say, 5000rpm? It'd be more like 165 lbft peak at 6500 rpm. Have you ever driven a car that weighs, say, 2830lbs that has that kind of a power band? If so, did it excite you? I've just given the peak power and torque for the 2175cc S2000 engine, and the weight of the 2005 S2000. Go drive an S2000 for a week. If that's what you like, go forward, and determine how much more power you'd want in your Z. Then consider: 1- How much money you'd have to spend on the upgrades to get the power you'd want and keep it reliable (you'll need more rpm most likely, which stresses the shortblock and valvetrain) 2- What the lowest usable rpm will be, i.e., where is the engine just so flat and limp that you'd hate driving it in that rpm band. This rpm will rise as the peak hp and torque rpm figures go up, which you'll need to get more power. BTW, how much is going to be enough hp to make it seem fast enough for you? Have you ever ridden in a 2800 lbs car with 400 hp or more? If so, did it excite you more than the 250hp 2500lb car above? Would the engine in that 2800lb, 400 hp street car be a candidate if it gave you a more affordable, more reliable, more streetable rpm torque/power band, but it was a 6 or 8 cylinder engine? Would the engine in that 2800lb, 400 hp street car be a candidate if it were a turbo 4 cylinder or turbo 6 cylinder? In addition to learning about NA power curves, their dependence on high rpm to make "impressive" power, and what that means as far as having little torque for MOST if not ALL of the street-type rpm range, I would advise you to ride in or drive different engined cars. The saying "there's no replacement for displacement" (sic, NA displacement) is not just some silly phrase - there's a bunch of empirical data behind it.

I'd like to see a lecture like that - but only if it's for non-physicists - otherwise, I'd be LOST.

Yeah, that Mallet thing is mucho bucks. Michael, I haven't read the article yet - but I too bemoan the 3000+ weight. I've said it before, Pontiac screwed the pooch on the Sostice weight.

This doesn't seem correct to me:

No, this isn't the Mallet car. GM Performance and Hot Rod Magazine got together and did this one.

May 2006 Hot Rod Magazine, page 101, "The World's Baddest Solstice". First Paragraph: "The engine swap is a tradition in hot rodding and HOT ROD magazine. Cadillac V-8s and Buick nailheads in Model A and B Fords were commonplace in the early days, and the muscle-car was born via the concept of the engine swap. Anyone over the age of 35 remembers the V-8 Vegas, Monzas, and Pintos, lightweight economy cars that were easily made to go very fast with a healthy small block stuffed in place of the stock four. And let's not forget the V-8 Datsun 240/260/280Z, which combined Chevy V-8 power with the little sports car's inherent handling abilities." (I added the bold font.) Is the V-8 Solstice the next popular hybrid? (No, I don't mean the tree-hugger hybrids!) I'd love to have one! Of course, they put the LS7 in it. I want one!

I don't think this applies to the L6, but on the DSM, the instructions for the CF were very explicit about having the flywheel surfaced WITH THE CORRECT "STEP" AT THE EDGED OF THE FRICTION SURFACE. The DSM uses a stepped flywheel, and the step is important for the correct pressure to be applied while engaged. Are the L6 CF pressure plates just OE PP's, like for the DSM CF PP? If so, it's not surprising that they fail at lower rpm wher ethe weights don't do as much to help holding pressure. Just a theory.

Great use of the non-tech forum, IMO! I hope it helps in your fund raising. Actually I know it did You're only $15 from your goal now

Awesome times on street tires! What octane are you running?

You're welcome! Sorry it took so long to straighten out!

OT alert: Dr_hunt- I have a DSM AWD I thought had developed a rod knock-nope it was carbon build up on the pistion. A long cruise fixed it. I was just hoping your buds car had the same problem.

The fenders on my Z are aftermarket. I bought them from a guy in Pennsylvania years ago, but they are probably all the same, i.e., use the same dies, etc. They required a little work to fit right, but nothing very involved. Not bondo was needed.

I FINALLY found where the allowable image size settings for avatars are kept. I've set it to 80x80 pixels (a default that is suggest on in the manual, and I think is a reasonable size) and 20000 bytes. It had been set to 50x50, but I agree, that's pretty small, so I bumpted it up. Rufus, I used the 130x82 image you sent me and resized it to 80x50 an uploaded it for you. What do you think of how it looks now?