doradox

I use this... http://www.goldeagle.com/products/product3CC6.aspx to treat my Z for the winter. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea year round but for the cost. Steve

No, I see a plug reading as an indicator of the total fuel delivery system. A good plug reading means the system is working, regardless of what that system is. That being said, reading plugs is a ballpark measurement of the average mixture for the range of conditions (engine load, environment, etc.) just prior to the reading. If you are sweating the details then you need a better measurement system like, as you mentioned, an O2 sensor. Steve

S13 240SX slave is 3/4 inch bore and master is 5/8. Same for S14s. This info is from the FSM. Steve

A lash pad could be cocked and holding a valve open. I'd pull the valve cover and take a peek. Steve

Yes, it should just run out without even pumping. Sounds like something blocking the port between the reservoir and the cylinder. Is the piston returning all the way back up against the clip that holds it in? You'll have to remove the boot to see. Steve

Check the adjustment of the pedal free play. If the rod from the pedal to the MC is too tight it will hold the piston in the MC too far forward, covering the hole that lets fluid into the cylinder, and the fluid in the reservoir will not fill the cylinder. If everything is OK you should actually just be able to loosen the bleeder screw on the Slave and eventually fluid will run. Gravity bleed. I always do it that way. Steve

Just an observation. Not a commentary. When I hear Zed I know that it means the letter "Z" and that I'm not in Kansas anymore. Which is fine by me. Steve

Very nice! Steve

Me too. Not since 1965. Steve

I find it interesting that folks that pronounce Z as Zed at times write it out as they would pronounce it, Zed. But I can't remember a time when, outside of this kind of discussion, anyone wrote Zee instead of Z. Steve

A common and often used equation used to estimate HP. HP = (AP*CR*VE)*(CID*RPM)/(5252*150.8) HP = Horspower AP = Air Pressure, 14.7 psi CR = Compression Ratio, ie: 8=9:1, 10=10:1 VE = Volumetric Efficiency; ie: stock ~ 0.90; high-performance ~ 1.00; race ~ 1.10 Keep all things on the right side of the equation other than CID equal between two engines. Same CR. Same VE. Same RPM. In other words two engines in like states of tune. No terms are raised to a power or any other funky stuff so it's linear. 10% more CID means 10% more HP. It also does not weight either bore or stroke in the CID term. Another that can be used is PLAN. HP = plan/33,000 Where p = mean effective pressure (pounds per square inch), l = length of piston stroke (feet), a = net area of piston (square inches), and n = number of cycles completed per minute. Note again that it's linear and the result of a 10% increase in CID is a 10% increase in HP. These equations are simplifications of the many variables that determine HP. And obviously crazy extremes in the values of the variables would make the equations less accurate. The point is, controlling for all the variables between engines (like builds or state of tune if you prefer), if you build one with 10% more CID you will have 10% more HP. So, as I have said multiple times, all things being equal (equal states of tune) a 10% increase in CID will gain you 10% increase in HP. Steve

Or is it just "Z"? Welcome! Steve

Before you run out and buy camber bushings there is a difference between out of alignment according to the factory specs and bad alignment. If you could post your numbers we can advise you on whether or not they are worrisome. I always prefer a little more negative camber than the specs call for so my Zs have always been "out of alignment". Steve

That is just too cool, and unique. I love it. Steve

I answered that in post 21. And in the context of the exceeding small difference in displacement between the Rebllo 3.0 stroker and the 2.8 over bored the same as the Rebello kit it's even more valid. But since you keep repeatedly making the claim why don't you put up or shut up? Steve

Rebello 3.0 stroker kit with 88.5 bore (2.5mm over) gives 2982cc stock 2.8 crank/rods with 88.5 bore (2.5mm over) gives 2907 cc If you are looking to wind it out for max hp at high rpm the Rebello kit has the necessary robust crank and rods but the displacement gain is marginal at 2.5 % more than just boring the 2.8 to the same overbore as the Rebello kit. For a fun to drive street car I'd overbore the 2.8 and spend $1900 minus the cost of pistons/rings on something else. Steve

2) Just using your "numbers" argument. Chevy 302 by the way. 3) You said low rpm motors. I gave an example. It proved you wrong. 4) Cams don't stroke engines. Fact. 5) The part where you can't use logic or physical laws to make your point. 6) It seems you can't back up your claims with anything more than "because I said so". That's unfortunate. Steve

2). Really? what magic does a stroker possess? Would you prefer an SB 307 (long stroke small bore) over an SB 302 (short stroke big bore). The 302 is renowned for it's "numbers" 3). Pointless? Really? The best thing I ever did to my stock SB 400 (400 ft*lbs @ 1200 rpm 4200 rpm redline)) was to put headers on it. Made a huge difference. Your statement just is not true. 4). You are interpreting "a full 3.0 stroker kit" as including a cam? What does the cam have to do with making an engine a stroker? Nothing. By your reasoning you would cam the 2.8 also. So where does that leave us? Oh that's right, the difference in displacement and what it costs to achieve that. 5) For the third or fourth time. Comparing apples to apples. 2.8 liters vs. 3.0. Not cams, intakes, headers, porting or any other variables. What is the gain just from the displacement increase. 7% 6) And that is based on what physics? A motor is an air pump. Do you really think a 7% bigger pump will magically pump more than that? All other things being equal (do I need to keep saying that to you?) at 100% VE the 3.0 will put out 7% more HP that the 2.8 at 100% VE. It's ingesting 7% more fuel air mixture and so has only 7% more energy available to produce power. It's physic and thermodynamics. Not the magic of stroke. What logic or physical laws can you use to make your point? Steve

So that dyno chart was for an engine that was far from just a stoked stock motor? And you compared that to a stock motor and told us all how you got a 50% increase in torque from a stroker yet neglected to mention the other mods? So how much did the stroker part of it add and how much was from carb, cam and header. The OP was comparing short blocks, not a stock engine vs. a highly modified one. Again, I was trying to quantify the gain from going with increased stroke only NO OTHER MODIFICATIONS. A stroker, by definition, is a bigger engine displacement wise. We agree that there ain't no replacement for displacement. That is what makes it work so well on the street. It's a bigger engine! There is nothing magical about a long stroke. A larger bore will also give more torque. As the surface area of the piston is larger the pressure on the piston produces more force that pushes on the rod that pushes on the crank. More force on the same lever gives more torque. Since most engines are limited to how much you can over bore them the only other way to substantially increase the displacement is to increase the stroke. I didn't say it was bad or a waste of time or anything else. just that a 7% larger engine can be expected to put out 7% more hp. Torque never won any races unless it was accompanied by rpm, which by now we all know, equals HP. Steve

All good questions but my math still says the 3.0 stroker 10:1 short block vs. the 2.8 10:1 short block will produce about 7% more hp. We can go on and on about a hundred different variables and in the end we will concluded that "their ain't no replacement for displacement". Forced induction aside. BUT, if that displacement gain is small (7%) and the cost high there may be a better way. I was just trying to quantify the hp gain in terms that would help the OP decide if the additional cost is worth it to him. Steve

That's a nice power curve for grandma, or a tractor, but where did your HP go? Your intake, head, cam, exhaust couldn't handle the increased flow so you basically shifted your torque curve to a lower rpm and ended up with little or no HP gain. From my equation if you reduce rpm you have to increase torque to make the same HP. Also your displacement increase from 2.0 to 2.3 is a 15% increase where the increase from 2.8 to 3.0 is only 7%. Looks like my math still holds. You didn't gain more than about 15% HP. I am assuming drivetrain losses absorbed that in your dyno plot vs. the stock numbers you quoted. Steve

No, I didn't. Remember I said "all things being equal". For identical rpm ranges you would have a 7% increase in torque because HP= torque(ft*lbs) *rpm/5252. At a given rpm a 50% increase in torque is a 50% increase in HP. .2 liters alone aren't giving you any 50% increase in HP. Steve

All things being equal 3.0/2.8 = 1.07. So 1.07 times more hp for the 3.0. In other words if your hypothetical 2.8 made 200 hp your 3.0 would make 214 hp. That's an expensive 14 hp. Steve

It sounds like you could improve quite a bit with some tuning. I ran my 73, stock with headers and round tops, at SIR in Tucson and pulled 16.0s consistently. And SIR is at 3000 feet elevation. It pissed me off that I just couldn't quite break into the 15s. One thing to remember when is that your et doesn't start counting down until you break the lights. So relax a little and concentrate on launching and not on cutting a good reaction time. It's a fun time and can tell you a lot about how your car performs. Steve

Just make sure you aren't going to have any metal to metal contact on parts that will move independently of each other and you should be OK. Steve