Kevin Shasteen

I dont know about the newer Z's but the older Z's master cylinders have an equalizer valve in them, so if one resovoir gets low it will allow the full resovoir to spill over to the resovoir with low level fluid. So dont just fill up one resovoir & think you have it taken care of. Make sure you always check & fill both resovoirs at the same time. When you are ready to bleed the brakes, and if you dont have a one person bleeder, get a friend to pump the brakes up three times and then have them hold the brake pedal down on that third time; then turn the bleeder valve on the rear passenger brake till it opens and the air trickles out...sometimes air bubbles will sputter out with the fluid. So, look for a bubbles in the fluid. Once the pressure in that valve is relieved, tighten that valve (softly=but snugly-you dont want to strip their threads). Repeat that procedure once more on the same brake. Always have your friend pump the brake pedal three times and hold them down on the third time-then while your friend is holding down on the brake pedal-open the bleeder vavle. Always do this twice per brake. Then move to the rear driver's brake & do the same thing. Thirdly, move to the front passenger brake & repeat the procedure. Fourthly, move to the front driver's brake & do the same thing. Next, check the level of the fluid in both master cylinder resovoirs; fill them up if needed. Now repeat the brake bleeding process once more checking the master cylinder often. You may have to do this entire procedure three times, and you may have to do it seven times; it all just depends on how quickly the air bubbles move thru your system....you can tell when you are done as when the bleeder valve is opened you see nothing but fluid and your brake pedal should be solid. If you dont have 4wheel disk brakes...you need to make sure your rear brakes are adjusted correctly. If you have rear drum brakes & they are too lose; you will never get that solid brake pedal feeling. That is pretty much it. If you find yourself constantly having to refill you master cylinder over the next week or every few days, then either a bleeder line is not fully closed, a leaky wheel cylinder or a leaky brake fluid line at one of the brake line connections. Hope that helped you; dont let it get you too uptight as it really is pretty much a straight forward process....it either is a tightly sealed system and your brake pedal is solid or you have a leak somewhere & the pedal is not solid; and or air bubbles are still in the lines. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Sounds like a Mystery....as Sherlock Holmes once said, "Remove all the obvious answers to the mystery and the only logical possibilities remaining would be the not so obvious (paraphrased, of course). So what could it possibly be that is "not so obvious"? You already said that the noise is coming from the front of the engine. Do you still have the A/C compressor on the car? If the A/C compressor has a belt on it then the compressor's idler bearing is being utilized; even if you dont use the A/C...the bearing is turning if the engine is running. When the A/C's engagement clutch idler bearing goes bad it will sould just like the idler pulley after all, it is also an idler pulley...the only difference is that it is housed in the Compressors Engagement CLutch. I'ld check that next. I dont know how your fan belts are arranged, but if you can remove that fan belt to the A/C compressor and then run your car around the block a time or two; I'ld bet you will have solved your problem! One last possibility is your belts are burned. Once they warm up they squeal. So, check your belts and make sure they are not cracked & glazed. If they are, the replace them while you are isolating the A/C Compressor. Let us know when you solve this mystery; this is truly one I have not come across, till now. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Keep in mind my comments are not relative to Class Rules; as I have no knowledge of what is allowed in any particular given Auto-X/Rally-X Class. Now, after giving my Disclaimer: I would have to ask, Is your car going to be street driven car or is it going to be an Auto-X/Rally-X Car; as the two are not one in the same. The 96-97% Street Driven car will want low end power & Expect, "NEED", low rpm idle quality as it will rarely see above 4000rpm's and be expected NOT TO OVERHEAT in Stop-n-Go rush hour traffic. Whereas the Auto-X/Rally-X engine will need its power at High Rpm and will not come on to the cam until well after the 4500rpm range....these two engine needs are diametrically opposed; providing you truly wish to be competative on the Auto-X/Rally-X. For if you wish to build an engine that performs competitively on the Auto-X/Rally-X, then it will not perform well on the street. Yes, you can build an engine that runs both on the street and the Auto-X/Rally-X; but it will be a huge COMPROMISE in both Streetability and the performance at the Auto-x/Rally-X. I think (IMHO) that most people who want a "Streetable Engine" dont really know what they mean when they use the word "Streetable" and then combine that term in the same breath as a race car of some kind. You cant have both; without a turbo/supercharging. If you are running A/C and Vacuum assisted brakes (for the street) then you will need a cam that offers that ability at low rpm; or a vacuum assist of some kind. Still; you cant have "Streetability" and Auto-X/Rally-X Performance unless you are only wanting to do the Auto-X/Rally-X just for fun...and are not deadset on Winning...then and only then can you get away with an engine that is also "Streetabile" within the Auto-X/Rally-X arena. Yes, of course this is "Just My Opinion" and still based on the fact I dont know about any Class Rules pertaining to Stock -vs- Non-Stock performance. Kevin, (Yes,Still an Inliner)

I would like to reiterate what Pete has said; I dont know how to tell a fake from the real item either, but in the past I have been told (two to three times) that steering items should be left to NISSAN only as your typical run of the mill ball joints & tie rod ends have been known to "Break" under load....causing an unhappy and unsuspecting wreck; when this happens I hope it is at low low rpm speeds. Is this just NISSAN pushing their brand; I'm not their parts mfg'r nor am I the parts mfg'r to any aftermarket vendor...so I can only restate what has been told to me. Yes, Nissan ball joints & tie rod ends are expensive, but I gave in to the "Speculation" that they were a superior part & bought Nissan ball joints & Tie Rod ends. Even if you inspect your aftermarket tie rod ends often; the naked eye can not see stress fractures. So, I guess all I can say is; Buyer Beware! Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Scott, This is an an issue anyone wanting to Dyno their engine should be aware of: "Brake Specific Fuel Consumption". Unfortunately DD2k doesnt address the issue. In John Lawler's book, "Auto Math Handbook" by HP Books w/copywrite date 1991, he address BSFC in Chaptor 4. He says when you get the Print Out of your Dyno-it should have the BSFC on it; it the vendor providing the services of their Dyno doesnt include this factor-then go somewhere else whose Dyno does include this info. He further explains-once you have your Dyno w/the BSFC column included; it will indicate the "Fuel-Flow Rate" in [lbs/hr] at any given RPM. Once you know the "BSFC" in "Lbs/Hr" at any one "Rpm" you can determine that engine's MPG. His example is as follows: A 350 SBC that indicates 144 lbs/hr at the rpm where it develops 300 brake hp at the [Peak Torque] rpm, simply work the math like so: BSFC = 144/300 Lawlor claims the BSFC will usually be anywhere from .48; generally less than .50; again this will be at the Peak Torque RPM-even tho the formula calls for the use of the BHP figure. At lower rpms the airflow through the intake is slower than at peak torque and, at higher arpm, there isnt time to maintain the same airflow as there is at peak torque. So at engine speeds below or above peak torque, airflow will not be as efficient and, as a result, the BSFC will be greater. That is basically all it says. Since you dont have access to the BSFC, then the question begging to be asked would be, "What is considered normal Lbs/Hr for any given engine?" Since we are guessing: "As We Have No Real Engine To Put on a Dyno" we could use the "CFM" formula to get our theoretical "Lbs/Hr" formula and then plug that theoretical number into the "BSFC" formula. The formulas or is that formulii(?) are as follows: 1) AirCFM = (Displacement x RPM) / 3456) x VE%))) 2) Lbs/HR = (AirCFM x 4.38 x .08) /6Lbs per Gallaon)) 3) BSFC = "Lbs/Hour" / Brake Hp *NOTE=the Lbs/Hr formula was something I found in a Fuel Injection book, which addresses Duty Cycle of an Injector, nonetheless, it will give you the theoretical fuel requirements in "Lbs/Hr" for any one rpm. Keep in mind; these formulas are merely "Educated Guesses" and should be looked upon as "Baseline" focal points....not Absolutes. When dealing with the Fuel Delivery System I dont think the formulas can possibly factor in "Efficiency, Intensity" nor the Application of Efficiency and Intensity; if that even made any sence to you at all(?). Nor will these formulas take into account the Parasitic Losses to the "Electrical" pump during acceleration at any one given point. What I'm getting at is this; how can the formulas possibly take into account the effects of a 100 Gallon/Hr fuel pump with a Fuel Pressure Regulator set to "X" -vs- a fuel pump whose output registers 80 Gallons/Hr with the same Fuel Pressure Regulator set to "X" during cruise/acceleration. Then factor in a 750cfm carb -vs- a 600cfm carb on an engine when the CFM formula only calls for 450cfm: to go even further which jets, power valves and accelertor pump springs/cams are to be used? Hope that all made sence; without an actual Dyno print out, which includes the BSFC taken directly from the engine..., it is all just one big guess. I would say this though; even DD2k uses formulas to make their "Guess"; so guessing isnt bad-it just isnt shouldnt be looked upon as an absolute. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Well, I'm not really familiar with what harness is required in a turbo car where that car was not a factory trubo car to begin with. But, I do have a Factory Datsun 78 Manual. Its Ignition Chart has the powerflow as such: Power begins at the, 1) Battery, from the + Post, to the 2) Ignition switch, from the Ignition switch 3) The circuit splits into two wires: Both of these are "Black & White" wires, from the split 4) One "Black & White" wire goes directly to the + side of the coil 4a) The other "Black & White" wire goes into the Transistor Ignition Module, which 5) Powers the Transistor Ignition Module *NOTE: From the Picture of the Transistor Ign.Module there appears to be 4 separate control functions: a) Spark Timing, Signal Monitoring circuit Lock Preventing circuit c) Duty Control circuit d) Power Switching circuit It is the a) Spark Switching circuit that exits the module & attaches to the - (negative) side of the coil: this wire should be a "L" color; I'm guessing "L" means Light Colored(?). 6) Then there are two other wires at the Transistor Ign.Mod: "Red & Green" a) One: one wire coming from the distributor Two: one wire going to the distributor *NOTE: The book is kind've confusing on how the "Red" or "Green" wire is hooked up to the distributor: it merely shows a terminal block at the dist. PERHAPS IT IS THIS TERMINAL BLOCK THAT WAS HOOKED UP BACKWARDS; interupting the polarity? And that is it. The book doesnt go into detail about each circuit; simply shows the diagram. I would venture in guessing that, in your harness replacement, you either crossed a wire to the ignition switch or crossed a wire going to the Transistor Ign. Module. A final guess could be that: 1) the ignition switch has failed 2) the Transistor Ign.Mod. has failed or 3) one of the components has failed & you also may have crossed a wire in your installation of the new harness. Hope this helped. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Desktop Dyno doesnt factor in speed nor does it take into account the car; such as the gearing as the previous replies have suggested. Quick question: What rpm did desktop dyno give for peak power/hp? Were you at the peak rpm when you ran the 1/8mile track? From the desriptions of your build it indicates to me you probably have an engine that doesnt really come into power till after the 4k rpm area. If you are running the stock rear end and stock wheels/tires then your 75mph 1/8mile run has not allowed your car to get up on rpm's which is where your cam, intake, cyl.heads need to be. If you dont know your Static Comp. Ratio nor your Dynamic Comp. Ratio then I would merely ask you, "How do you feel your engine is running"? What are the rpm's at the end of your 1/8mile run -vs- the rpm's when you have reached 100mph; and can you tell a difference from the sound of the engine as it reaches the end of the 1/8mile -vs- when you have reached a WOT 100mph? If you feel the engine is strong at the end of a hard accelerating WOT 100mph run....then as the other guys suggested: your problem is most likely your gearing (differential gear ratio, wheels & tire size). Your engine is built for above 4500rpm's and not below it. If you want a strong running car in the 1/8mile track then you will have to alter you gearing, or you could downsize your cyl.heads, intake manifold, camshaft and maybe the carb also. Airflow charachteristics determine how the "ENGINE" will run, whereas "GEARING" determines how your car will run for any particular given track. The two should compliment each other for their specific required intentions. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

All I get when I click on your site is "This Site is Not Available". Sure would like to see the shaker hood on a Z as I was contemplating this at one time or another. Since you did the shaker hood did you also incorporate the T/A's fender vents into the Z? Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

As Terry illuded to your small displacement engine w/3" or less of a Stroke is going to require "HIGH RPM" to obtain your 350hp goal. In order to obtain a 350hp rating w/such a small displacement you will need to rev up to at least the 6.5-7k rpm's. This means your low rpm will be pathetic; as you claimed-driveability is preferred....dont think you can have both! If driveability is an issue I would not use the 280 cam as idle will be in the 850-900rpm neighborhood and low rpm idle Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR) will stink if all you are shooting for is a 9.5:1 Static Comp.Ratio (SCR). DCR & SCR should compliment each other....not oppose each other. If you were to go w/the 280H cam your Intake Valve Closing (IVC) would occur at 66* ABDC. In a 289 (with a 2.870" Stroke, 5.155" Rod, 1.608 Piston Compression Height...then as that IVC occurs your cylinder would only have .762% Volume Remaining in the cylinder: the amount of Volume Remaining after IVC is effected w/Displacement. The less displacement of the engine-the greater % of Volume Remaining as a requirement also increases; likewise-more displacement means you can get away with less % of Volume Remaining after the IVC occurs...such as in a big block. Anyway, back to your engine. This minimal amount of Volume Remaining would require at least a 10.5:1 to 11.0:1 SCR so that low rpm [driveability] would not suffer...but with that SCR you are pushing the Pump Gas limits; better make sure you are running Alluminum Cyl.Heads. If (low rpm engine vacuum) low rpm driveability is a concern then maybe you should think about a 260, 262, 268H Cam instead. If most of your driving will be done on the street and this car is also your main source of transportation-an engine that has a poor Dynamic Compression Ratio (DCR) is not what you want. Why put in a cam whose power comes into play after 4500rpm's; you said yourself most of your driving will be on the street(?). With a smaller cam your engine will still rev to 6k; it will merely be your limit which also means your power range will be 3.5k rpm's....much better for the street. FWIW: the Xtreme Energy 262 Cam would allow for a nice idle at/or around 650-750rpm's and would still require a 10:1 SCR but offers an 8.5:1 DCR. This also requires a Total Combustion Chamber Volume of 64.88cc's. This means your Quench, Compressed Head Gasket cc's, Piston Dome/Dish cc's and Combustion Chamber cc's must add up to a total of 64.88cc's to obtain this 10:1 SCR and with the 262cam allows for an 8.5:1 DCR. All this translates into a good low idle with great engine vacuum at that low idle: AKA: Good Low Rpm Driveability. Just my thoughts: take it or leave it; hope it helps. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Working on engines is not that difficult, yet, if you are new to the game there is a learning curve involved not to mention tools that are required; a hammer and screwdriver just wont cut it all the time. If I had the money I would consider buying a crate engine from a reputable source; especially one that offers a warranty. The learning curve I mentioned earlier involves making mistakes along the way and the joy of a reputable crate engine should mean bypassing the hassle of "what parts combo's should I use -vs- what parts combo not to use" game which at times can drive you crazy (if you are new to the game). I am like Terry though, in that, I wouldnt fully trust an engine (450+ hp), unless I put it together myself; and this is moot if you paid the big bucks; like a $10k engine from any of the real big name builders. Real 'HP' that is also dependable and durable costs [bIG BUCKS]. If I had to buy a crate engine, I would not blink if/when I bought the engine from a "Reputable Source". 400hp is not that difficult now days with off the shelf parts. The aftermarket vendors have really altered the consumers approach to high performance; with the numerous onslought of hi/po goodies that are now CNC mfg'd. The aftermarket crowd really has made it easier for you & I, and a crate engine w/400hp is not something I would dismiss to quickly. Anything above and beyond that magic 450hp number should costs considerably more; if you want it to be durable and dependable. If you were to build your own engine, just balancing, blueprinting, w/porting to the cylinder heads and the advent of forged pistons will easily cost you $3.5k...EASILY; and the engine is still not assembled yet-this is a part of the learning curve I was speaking about earlier. Buy the engine from a "Reputable Source" and dont expect dependable and durable engines w/BIG Hp#'s (450+ hp) w/out paying For it; buy a 400hp or under engine from a reputable source and your learning curve can take its own time coming up to speed w/out the headache of those usual pitfalls many of us tend to find. If you do buy a crate engine just be sure you know what "quality" parts are being used. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

How you tell an intermittant loss of fuel -vs- intermittant loss of ignition is you will get an excessive smell of fuel and an occational backfire whereas with the intermittant loss of ignition. For an intermittant loss of fuel you will get a quiet loss of power (No Fuel-no source to Ignite/and no excessive smell of fuel). Without an intermittant loss of fuel your car will also lunge and jerk-may even spit or sputter a little, but usually [yes "usually"] you wont notice any backfiring. This doesnt mean that it any easier to diagnose...there is a fine line between the symptoms and requires a close monitoring of the situation if/when it manifests itself. Pete, My next suggestion was going to be to put the 600cfm carb back on and see if the problem occurs; then if it does not you will know that the problem lies somewhere in the application of the 750...be it tuning, excessive fuel-whatever. I would try a different carb just, if for no other reason, to eliminate or finger the carb as the possible problem. I once had a 66 Olds Cutlass (Bone Stock) 330V8 Police Interceptor engine that experienced loss of power similar to what you described. As I removed the carb I found that the base plate gasket had torn and the part that tore had finangled its way into blocking two of the Venturi. It had become a hinderance to airflow; as you know-this airflow at that part of the carb is the main signal that pulls the fuel out from the bowls. So even tho my carb was not running out of fuel....MY ENGINE WAS RUNNING OUT OF FUEL due to an improper booster signal. Keep us apprised of any/all diagnosis along the way and keep picking our brains. You and the rest of us should be able to solve this grimlin. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Pete, When you say it "Feels like it is running out of Power" are there any backfires or is the "Running our of Power" a quiet loss, as in a loss of power without any backfires? Ex: loss of power if/when a Fuel Filter is clogged, (No Power at High Rpm's only Low Rpm's). And when you say you dont think it is fuel starvation, does it smell like there is excessive fuel at the carb? Do you recal what the "Ambient Temp's", of the day were, specifically at the moment when you experienced your "loss of power"? The reason I asked is this, if it is ignition related, and I'm assuming your ignition is a "Hot" set up; if that ignition doesnt get enough "Ram Air" it could overheat. Throw out the possibility of a bad ground supplementing the hot ignition...which could cause a heat soak condition???? Just throwing out ideas; but if you would, please elaborate on if you could/could not smell excessive fuel at the carb. If you could smell excessive fuel I would argue that your problem was a "No Spark" or "Not Enough Spark" scenario. Also, please elaborate on if you did/did not experience any "backfires" when your loss of power manifested. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Mike, In the book, "5.0L Ford Dyno Tests" they had a similar set to yours. BTW-you should get this book as each modification included an actual Dyno Run to indicate the effect on power output. They were comparring the Upper Intake of two brand names: Cobra -vs- Edelbrock, and their parts list included the following: 1) Stock Block, Crank, Rods, Pistons 2) B303 Cam 2) Iron GT-40 Heads 3) GT-40 Valves 4) GT-40 Lower Intake 5) Cobra -vs- Edelbrock Upper Intake Comparrison 6) 36 lbs/hr Injectors 7) 80mm Mass Air Meter 8) Offroad Exhaust 9) 1.6 Rockers * Cobra Upper Intake gave 478 hp @ 5400rpms / 505 lbs.ft @ 4700rpm's * Edelbrock Upper Intake gave 490 hp @ 6000rpm's / 496 lbs.ft @ 4800rpm's It appears by other similar set ups in that book that the Exhaust/Camshaft are the key limiting factors w/the GT-40 Heads/Intake and/or similar components of other brand names. As other Dyno runs with similar components where the Exhaust were either stock manifolds or typical headers the power numbers were considerably smaller and in the neighborhood of: 331 HP @ 5200rpms and using Shorty Headers will net you the mid 450 hp @ 5500-6000rpm range. That book also has a chapter where they compared 8 different Cams for the 5.0L engien: all the way from stock to Midly Modified. Buy the book & you will be glad you did. (Wish I were getting commisions on all these book recommendations ). The book was, "5.0L Ford Dyno Tests" by Richard Holdener, published by Cartech's SADesign w/a 2000 copywrite date. When looking for it at a bookstore it has a paper cover that is moderate blue w/a binder that is dark blue. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Eric, What displacement or which engine family you decide to go with is not something someone can suggest for you. It would just be their opinion -vs- someone else's opinion. What, When and How to approach your project is entirely decided on you and your familiarity with auto mechanics. In you walk on this Earth, of 16 years, you have become familiar with auto mechanics, then all is well; you will still have a couple dozen or more problems (not big problems-just brain teaser problems) from your most humble beginning to the end of your swap. If you are not that familiar with auto mechanics then you have a huge learning curve; still, dont let this be a sole reason for walking away. Everyone starts at their own level and learns from that point onward. Go for it, just be aware that when you come upon a problem-it is not something that cant be resolved. I would suggest you ask around at school, ask your parents or friends (that you trust) who is mechanically knowledgeable as it is always a relief to know that someone who is helping has a working knowledge of auto mechanics. As far as which displacement; if you are not well accustomed to a "High Performance" engine, then start with a lightly modified Small Block; and I would suggest the Chevy since its been done and a kit is already available. Until you are accustomed to the "Power" of a truely high performance vehicle; power can be a deadly thing. Good luck and keep everyone apprised of your progress. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Perhaps, for now-up until someone comes up with the answer, we should be content in only knowing what we do know. I still think that the approach to the Power:Weight Ratio in comparison to a skinny tire -vs- a wider tire cant be dismissed; even if we dont fully understand all elements involved. Perhaps we should be content in knowing that a skinny performance tire will lose its ability to "adhere" quicker than a wider performance tire. I guess what I'm getting at is this; if Race Car Engineering, the F1 Teams, Bridgestone and Michilin cant put a finger on the "final elements" involved in tire Cf's as JohnC commented on, then perhaps we lowly Hot Rodders should not worry about it either-let the experts toil in that respect. My purpose for attempting to understand the traction/friction aspect was an attempt to alleviate the often seen problem of our V8z's inability to launch w/o excessive tire spin. It is my suggestion that if an individual were to begin with an engine with a known power output, work the math from the flywheel to the rolling radius and finally to the tire, and if one wanted to start with the tire and work the math backwards. Anyway,is still my suggestion that one could get somewhat close in knowing "How Much Power Is Too Much Power" for that particular set up....much less for any vehicle and not just our Z's. In that attempt I quickly learned that the limit of the tire's ability to adhere under that WOT Acceleration was the limiting factor: the 'True' unknown variable if you will. Let's face it, if we were to put a 7"BiasPly 1970's tire on our V8z's (myself not included as I'm still an Inliner) would not the V8z experience more wheel spin? This excessive wheel spin (any wheel spin for that matter) is evidence that traction has been lost and/or the tire's ability to adhere has been exceeded (Overloaded). Maybe, just maybe then, we should be content in knowing 70% or 80% of the tire traction/friction problem and not concern ourselves with knowing 100% of the problem(?)! Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Okay, two months later, from when this issue began I now feel I have come to a few conclusions. I have had a few light bulbs come on, specifically in the area of traction/friction of a car's tire's during acceleration and negative acceleration. Without going into a full 1000 word report I will basically say this: I "feel" (remember-it is politically correct to "Feel") that a car's drive wheels/tires will lose traction if and when the torque being applied to the drive wheels exceeds both the "Normal Force" already applied downwardly on to the tire pushing onto its "Contact Patch", in combination with the tire's load and friction ratings. Normal Force being the amount of weight on the drive wheels at any given moment; such as the Weight of the Vehicle or the %of Weight of the Vehicle on the Drive Wheels. For our purposes "at any given moment" will be under "WOT Acceleration" from an initial standing stop. Notwithstanding an optimum set up steering/suspensioned car, weight transfer-better termed "Load Transfer" will shift weight to the drive wheels. For our purposes-that will be the rear wheels on a RWD vehicle. The amount of weight shifted is determined by the cars Front:Rear weight Ratio, Center of Gravity (Cg) of that particular Vehicle within a latitudinal, longitudinal & Vertical manner. This should beg the question what or how much torque is required, at the rear drive wheels, to match or exceed the "Normal Force". Well, each operator will have to determine their car's Cg. before that can correctly be calculated. But if you accept the usual Front:Rear 58:42 ratio for a GT car-such as the Z then you can do the math and pretty much get close in making an "Educated Guess". Guessing may not be absolute but it will get you in the ball park & give you a reference point of what I am attempting to say. Nonetheless; to determine your car's torque at the drive wheels-simply work the math from the Flywheel thru your Transmission's Gear Coupling (whatever gear you are in at the time), to the Differential Gear (your rear end's gear ratio), to the Wheels (Rolling Ratio). This gives you the amount of weight, in lbs/ft torque at the wheel, and is to be divided into the "Total Amount of Weight" (Mass), which is applied downwardly on your drive wheels at the moment of our hypothetical acceleration. Dont forget to add the Load Transfer weight to the already existing Normal Force. It is "THIS" moment where the rear suspension is shocked into a transistion from static to dynamic motion in its attempt to overcome inertia. If your engine has the "umph" to exceed the "Normal Force" and the tire's load/friction ratings-then your car will achieve that "Burn Out" effect and determine acceleration; or the lack of acceleration depending on how much of a burn out one prefers. This moment, this blink of an eye moment is further measured in increments of Gravity units of 1; or a 1 "g"; which is 32 ft/sec^2 or the fraction thereof if your car is not pulling a full g. The approach given above, if you have not noticed yet, does not include the Tire's Cf. Another approach would be to multiply: Tire's Cf x %Weight on Drive Wheels x Weight of Car This "Tire's Cf" would be the "Static Cf Value" of the tire (go figure). This again begs the question; when and how is the tire's Cf determined...guess we will have to get this number from the tire mfg; if they even release those numbers. I have not checked with any tire mfg's so I dont even know if that figure is available to Joe Public. Anyway, thought I would throw this out there hopefully to trigger someone's thought &/or responses-any responses, as usual, will be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately I still have not found any info on the tire's "Width" or "Contact Patch" and how it effects the ability to keep/lose traction-DOH! Newton never had to deal w/Cf's of a tire-if he had to I'm sure we would not be having this conversational thread. Still, any and all hot rodders know that a wider contact patch at the drive wheels aids traction much better than a skinny tire with less of a contact patch. Still got a few questions regarding a "Tire's Contact Patch" to answer; baby steps I guess. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Dont get me going about Stupid People and Driving: Oops, too late. I guess I should open with the Politically Correct thing and say that if I (as in myself) were given an I.Q. test by a Brain Surgeon or a Rocket Scientist, I to would be considered a "Stupid Person". BTW: did I spell Surgeon correctly-only a Stupid Person would spell Surgeon incorrectly! Stupid-ness is a Relative Term. Now, that I have that out of the way, as far as the rest of the "Regular [General Public]" and barring the Brain Surgeons & Rocket Scientist, I consider all others a horse of a different color. It is my firm belief that the Gas Station, Tire, Brakes, Stop Light and Stop Sign companies secretly employ the Stupid People. This way they (The Companies just mentioned) can strategically plant those Stupid People on the Highways and By-ways at the most inoportune times. Thereby, making it look like the Stupid People are Stupid-er than they really are. In reality they are just doing their job; and that is to slow the rest of us down so that our cars will have more wear and tear-thereby requiring more service, more gas consumed from the constant speeding up then slowing down, ect., ect. As far as traffic goes, if my theory is incorrect, then there should be a lane (a lane in a see thru bubble tunnel) specifically for the Stupid People; put them in the Plastic Bubble, as after all their brains are already in a "Cloud/Brain Fog". This way they would be out of the way and would not slow down all the other people that "Have a Clue" of where it is they are going and would not be slowed down by the Stupid Poeple. By having them in this "See Thru Tunnel" we could also keep an eye on them. The only problem with the "Stupid Lane in a see thru plastic bubble tunnel" is that either the Stupid People would not realize how to access their "Special Lane" or that too many Stupid People would end up in their appropriate lane only to find it difficult to "Get Out": thus slowing down the "Stupid Lane" and causing a back up at the entrance of the "Stupid Lane". This of course, would have the same problem we already have in the "Real" lanes, as the backup to the entrance of the "Stupid Lane" would trickle backwards into the real traffic, once again, slowing us down! Stupid Drivers; cant get around'em and you cant legally run them off the road; what to do what to do? Natural Selection has definately dropped the ball in that respect. Probably because Natural Selection never had to deal with Drivers and their Cars! BTW: Any misspelled words (Did I mis-spell the word Misspelled?) were not done because I am stupid, rather because I am a bad Typer, or is that Typist? I am beginning to feel a little inadequate now. Can someone please point me to my nearest "Stupid Lane" Entance! Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

BAlford, For starters when working the math for speed and rpm you dont want to use the circumferance of the tire; rather, it is much easier to use the diameter of the tire. My 78z has 190/70/14" tires. The 190 rep's the Section Width and is measured in mm's (millimeters): the Section Width simply means the "Distance Between the Sidewalls". The mm's will have to be converted into inches; the conversion factor is 25.4, so we will divide the 190mm's by 25.4 to get the Section Width in inches. The 70 rep's the Aspect Ratio and is a Percentage (%) of the Section Width. A (%) is a fraction of the whole. In our case the Section Width is the whole while the Aspect Ratio is the fraction. So, the 70 actually rep's .70, or 70% if you will. So our Aspect Ratio will be .70% of our Section Width: Remember, the Aspect Ratio is a fancy word for "Sidewall", as you know there are two Sidewalls, one at the top of the tire and one at the bottom of the tire: or one on each side-depending on how you look at it. And of course, our 14" rep's the actual diameter of our wheel. Now to put all this into a working formula, you would write the formula like so: Tire Diameter: = [(Section Width / 25.4) x Aspect Ratio/100]x2) + Rim" (You would plug your tire figures into the formula and work it accordingly), but for now, plug my tire dimentions into the formula and work it like so: Tire Diameter: = [(190/25.4) x 70/100)x2] + 14" = [(7.48" x .70) x2] + 14" = [(5.236"x2] + 14" = 10.472 +14" = 24.472" Since you didnt give your tire's dimensions we will have to work the math using the known variables you did give: 1)60mph 2)3000rpm's 3)3.545 differential 4)400TH...1:1 Ratio in 3rd gear The formula for determining a tire diameter with these known variables is as follows: Tire Diameter = MPH x Gear Ratio x 336 / RPM work the math like so: Tire Diameter: = 60mph x 3.545 x 336 / 3000rpm = 71467.2 / 3000 = 23.82" Now we can use that figure with the rpm and or speed formula, which is similar to the Tire Diameter formula. If we assumed your friends rpms were correct and your odometer is also correct; these are the formulas: RPM = MPH x Gear Ratio x 336 / Tire Diameter MPH = RPM x Tire Diameter / Gear Ratio x 336 If we were to use the 23.82" Tire Diameter and go with your new rear gear ratio of 3.36 then you could again use your 3000rpms to determine MPH, like so: MPH = 3000rpm x 23.82" / 3.36 x 336 MPH = 71460 / 1128.96 MPH = 63.297mph What you really need, besides a rear end that is not noisey, is a 700R4 AOD trans; then your cruise speeds would be pleasant and the wear-n-tear to the engine would be greatly minimized. Get the lower rear end & an AOD & then you'ld be sittin high on the hog; as the budget allows of course! Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

This explains whay White Cars are more expensive than Black Cars; blasted dealers-they dont let us get away with anything! Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Dont you just hate those stinkin Code Enforcers; even if it is only an inquirey, that is why I live in the Boonies. I do what I want when I want without having to get anyone's permission. BTW Mike, your grass is 1/4" too high, if you dont mow it to code spec's I'm gonna have to turn you in! Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

For that specific reason when I purchase an older car that I know I'll be keeping for a while; or that I know I will be modifying, I always buy multiple manuals. I always search for a Factory Service Manual; no matter how hard it is to find I will always keep searching till I find one. Someone has it & doesnt need it anymore; it is just a matter of finding that person and making them an offer. I also will purchase a Mitchell, Haynes & Chilton manual. This approach allows me to be pre-prepared for just about any possibility. If you need a Factory Datsun Manual; you can go to any Nissan Dealer & order your year manual on CD. That is of course you dont find your answer on this board: even if you do get your answer, I would still purchase the appropriate manuals. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

I am glad this topic came up. At first I was not going to say anything, but since JohnC and a few others pretty much posted my sentaments to a tee; I guess I'll chime in. The first post asked if anyone remembers the crash of 29. No, I dont as I was not born yet, but, I have read extensively about it. The crash actually didnt occur in 29 but a few years prior to that. It always takes the market a few years to depressurize due to the Hype of Wall Street's "Buy & Hold" frenzy, or "Buy Now While Everyone Else is Selling"; then once enough shares are bought up the company goes belly up & leaves you holding the bag. Seems that some things never change. Anyway, as I started to say, our market actually crashed in Oct.97. I dont remember if it was early Oct. or late Oct; but I do remember hearing that the market plumeted three times so severely that the alarm sounded and stopped all trading; this took place three times that day. On the third time the market was closed early for the day. Some would argue the alarm is a good thing [as it stopped the market from crashing]; but, I would argue if you are controlling the market's ability to depressurize its inflated trading, then is this not manipulation of the market? And if this is "Manipulation" then someone is gaining from its "Manipulation". If someone is gaining then someone else must be losing. Money is never lost; it is only converted in to someone else's pocket. Anyway; once I saw that Oct.97 incendent I knew it was only a matter of time; that was the "Writing on the Wall" for me. When all my friends where I used to work (prior to the layoff) were continueing to sink everything they could into the Inflated Market; I made sure I had nothing in it. Was this going to extremes? Maybe. But I'ld rather have nothing in extreme to lose due to a huge bubble implosion than have invested heavily & lose it all, never to gain it back or merely gain a little back. BTW, this bubble implosion we're experiencing is the bubble many writers have been writing about since the mid 80's. They were the doom and gloomers that everyone brow beated into submission. Seems they were right after all; only 15 years to quick to sound the alarm, go figure; could this be due to a Manipulated Market as mentioned earlier? I get so sick of the Wall Street crowd going thru their Hype one day because the Market has corrected itself a few hundred points; only to see it go back down next week an equal amount of points....and then some. Then the next day; THE MARKET IS UP 50 POINTS: COULD THIS BE THE TURN AROUND EVERYONE IS LOOKING FOR, BETTER BUY NOW!! It drives me up the wall (as in Wall Street), pun intended. Back when I was receiving a $250 a year ecomomic report, I remember a few times where they mentioned a possibility of the Euro Dollar in the works. Economist then speculated that if and when the Euro became a reality, and if and when the Euro gained popularity; the US and its dollar could see a major economic turn around. Couple this with our current Fractional Bank Reserve System; our Inflation is to the point that it is out of control. All that it would take for consumer confidence to go down the toilet would be a few financial catastrophes or an event (such as 911) to cause a knee jerk reaction, which in return would effect the economy. War time never seems to have a positive effect on the economy either. So what is the answer? I dont know. It is my utmost humble opinion that we have a lot further to go before our market hits bottom. As JohnC said, the "Buy & Hold" is only good for those that have something to gain from you! The companies that are cooking their books, the stock market that manipulates its true status, and the confidence of the consumer (or the Lack of the Consumer) are variables that have been at odds from day one. I can only say if you are going to invest-dont buy into the "Hype" of investers; it is beneficial to them that you concede to their demands/requests. Do they not make a profit off of you when you follow their dictums? If they make a profit off of you then possibly their goals are not the goals that are looking out for your best interest. As JohnC said earlier, what good does it do to "Buy & Hold" even if it is in a good company and that "Good Company" is on its way down; while only the insiders know that it is on the way down & they quietly sell their stocks while you are "Holding" onto yours(?). Good is a relative term. I do know this, even tho I was laid off by GM twice; I do know that GM was the only company that didnt lose its shirt at the end of WWII. Simply because they were so diversified. Maybe that is the answer; to ensure that you are diversified. That is my .02c's worth; yes you can give me my .01c's worth of change back if you like. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Impossible you say? Dont forget about the 1/2 dozen or so Super Carburetors that have popped up in the last 80 years or so. Since Jim didnt want to give a Book Report; I guess I will. Research will indicate that when the proper pressurizing of the fuel lines and the appropriate catalyst prior to fuel entering the engine is allowed to occur; that the thermo air pump we call an engine can be much more efficient; possibly approaching the 100% ratio. When reading about the 80 years of Super Carb technology it appears that when one of these combinations were correctly "Stumbled Upon" mileage was in the neighborhood of 100, 150 and up to 200mpg. Also, when these technicians did happen to get the combination correct-they discovered that the exhaust was [COLD] to the touch; which implies "Close to Perfect Combustion", AKA: No Wasted Energy whereby nothing but air & "Cold" moisture was exiting the exhaust pipe(s). It appears that the catalyst that was evident at the time was not actually understood. "ACCORDING TO THE WRITERS" on such illusive issues, the research I've read indicates that the Catalyst that was occurring was actually discovered in the mid to late 70's to early 80's and was termed "Thermo Catalitic Cracking" or T.C.C. T.C.C theorizes that the Gas Molecule, when Cracked due to some Catalyst, will split the gas molecule into smaller molecules: namely Hydrogen. And the exhuast actually becomes moisture(?) and a little air, go figure. The exhaust is "Quiet" an almost unheard. Futher reading on the T.C.C subject will lead the reader in understanding that the additives in the Fuel and Oil causes the "Catalyst" to be Neutralized, (Hmmm, sounds like a right wing conspiracy to me? ) even when using the appropriate pre-catalyst "Gimic" for the fuel before entering the Intake! In the earlier years 30's, 40's ect; the Catalyst that allowed these super carbs to function was the "Lead" that already existed in the make-up of the engine block. It has been "suggested" by many that our Tank Brigade in WWII actually had super carb's on them & this alone is what helped us catch the German Tank Brigades, AKA: We didnt require "Refueling" as often as the Germans did. (Provable? The powers that be dont talk to me so I cant comment on its validity...., just passing along what I've read) Anyway, this already existing lead in the cylinder block would work properly up until the lead was saturated as a catalyst; meaning, the catalyst would no longer occur and the supercarb was no longer super therefor returning the excessive mileage back gains back to a normal mileage. It was the T.C.C that was not understood in the earlier years. If you research the issue you will also note that the Gas companies began adding additives to our fuel and oil somewhere in or about the 30's. As stated earlier, it is these additives that allegedly impeded any "Real" gains due to T.C.C. So to repeat the super efficiency mileage carbs one would require "Drip Gas" and "Pure Processed Oil" without any of the additives. Well, there it is; you now have a basic book report on the Super Carb's. Fact or Fiction, Real or Imagined, it definately triggers the imagination: What if I too could get 200mpg? Just think; with a supercarb our monster performance engines would be considered a dog if they only got 100mpg/Blasted Performance Engines! Sorry if I got off topic; Back to the Black or White Car thing. I too doubt any gains from a black car would or could be positive in nature when factored in the "Unconfortability" of the driver in a black car verses a white car; especially if you have no A/C which many of us dont. Also; the alledged minute inefficiency of a white car could easily be overcome with a little extra "Torque or HP" and/or "Gearing". Just my thoughts. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)