Dan Baldwin

Partial retraction of above lambasting: I got to sit in the prez of our Z club's 350Z on Saturday. The interior is pretty cool. I like the door panels especially. Some may find them spartan and unadorned, but that's the way I like it (at least SOME Zness there). Seats were nice, but I'd prefer leather (only available on the Touring). He claimed it weighed in at 3120 lb. (performance model), still way overweight if you ask me, but at least lighter enough than the G35 to make the 350 a consideration (geez, all of the track model's additional 150+ lb must be unsprung (wheels/tires/brakes), not good). Ultimately, though, I could never really consider the car because I don't care for its looks (purely subjective opinion). At it's power/weight, the 350Z will never have a prayer against a competently driven C5. At 2800 lb., it would've been in the ballpark. It coulda been a contendah! Still wouldn't have a chance against my '71, though:)

If the definition of "sports car" is: "car with only two seats", then I'd agree it's a sports car. The definition of "sports car" has always been nebulous, so to say it has changed is kind of a moot point. To some, a Mitsubishi Eclipse is a "sports car". To some, there is no such thing as a closed-top "sports car". Anyway, whatever ya call it, the 350Z is nothing special. Why would any rational human being forsake rear seats and usable cargo space for only 150 lb. less weight and an additional 7hp? For the same money, the G35 makes a lot more sense. Nissan came out with a GREAT sedan platform, the FM. They have tried to make at least one too many cars out of it, though. The G35 sedan and coupe, the 350Z, and the new Skyline are all the same car underneath. Hence, the 350Z is GROSSLY overweight, and the G35 is THE hot BMW-fighter. Let the Skyline be the big, heavy supercar. The new Z was supposed to have returned to Z-ness, forsaking ZX-ness. To me that means LESS car. At 2400 lb. it would've been BRILLIANT! Another landmark car. At 2600 lb. it would've been GREAT! At 2800 lb. it would've been VERY GOOD, on the verge of greatness. 3300 lb?! Forget it. I'd rather have a MUCH nicer 3450 lb. G35 4-door 6-speed, for the SAME price. The 350Z is for those who want to feel "sporty", and equate "2-seater" with "sports car". It's not for true enthusiasts.

350Z a sports car from the ground up? My a**. I can't fathom why anybody would buy a 350Z when the better-looking (though still no work of art) G35 is only 150 lb. heavier. The 350Z is a car for those who want to FEEL sporty. It's no real sports car, it's a sedan with two seats. Oh yeah, it's ugly, too. I absolutely can't WAIT to meet one at the track:) Dan Baldwin '71 240Z 3.1, 235 rwhp COMSCC #7, 2002 SPB class champion

2314 lb. with an 1/8 tank of fuel. ~160 lb. more with me in it.

It's a 3.1 liter (diesel crank, 240Z rods, KA24E pistons). It was built in 1994. The cylinder head was recently gone over by Sunbelt in Atlanta. Ported, shaved, some chamber reshaping, their cam profile developed for lighter springs, 302deg/.550", 40.6cc chambers. Compression ratio is 10.8:1, runs on pump 93-octane. I just installed 3X2 45mm OER Racing carburetors. The car sounds fantastic, and pulls like mad up top. Went to a different dyno last night, but only got two runs in. First run was at with the same setup that made 235, and resulted in a 228hp pull. Then I installed smaller air jets and made 233. Then the dyno guy's neighbors were calling and he was having computer trouble, so that was it:( I don't think there's a lot more peak power to be had, but hopefully I can do something about the torque dip at ~4200.

Won my class and beat all but a Formula Continental at New Hampshire Int'l Speedway (south oval/north chicane) a couple of weekends back. Results here: http://users.rcn.com/comscc/results/nhis0902.htm Souls officially laid to waste: 911 Turbo, Viper GTS, Corvette Z06, numerous Cobra replicas My class, SPB (street prepared 6s and turbo 4s) had the top three times aside from the much quicker formula car. It was CLOSE. The Friday before I went to the dyno with newly installed 3X45mm triple OER Racing (formerly SK?) carbs. Dyno run sheet here: http://www.classiczcars.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2274 Going to another dyno tonight, assuming I get a FedEx with smaller air jets today. Another NHIS event this weekend. Woohoo!

Hey all. If the spacers are well made (flat, parallel surfaces, correctly centered tapered mounting holes, hub-centric), then ideally the loads are exactly the same as long as the overall offset hasn't changed, as in Zed's illustrations. Still, they can be a PITA, as I witnessed a Z-guy having to uninstall and reinstall his at the track on Sunday/Monday. Also, you can't easily retorque the spacers to the hub. I wouldn't condemn their use, but they do introduce additional potential problem areas. Finally, FWD offset rims don't look nearly as cool as zero-offset rims on a Z. Oh yeah, the shear load is the same no matter where the contact patch is laterally, and the moment changes linearly with the contact patch offset, not with the square. Dan Baldwin '71 240Z 3.1 COMSCC #7 SPB

Way back in '94 the pistons cost me $36.38 per (list at $50.53/ea). Rear wheel torque measured last year was 189 lb-ft. rwhp was 177 BUT I had a busted spark plug causing the engine to cut out above 5000 rpm. It was headed to 190 for sure. Can't wait to get back to the dyno to see what the cylinder head work has gotten me! Then I'll swap the 2" jag carbs for the 45mm OER 3x2s I've got and see what that does. A flat-top L28 is certainly a great bottom-end to build on as well. A diesel crank is by no means a necessity. But if you're rebuilding a bottom-end anyway, it's the perfect time to inch up!

Better late than never, I hope. Actually, I've had pretty good success with the 2" Jag carbs. Noticeable improvement in top-end breathing on the 3.1. Prior to using the big carbs, I would kind of hit a wall at ~6000 in 4th (though the motor pulled to 7000 in the lower gears). This was really annoying at the faster tracks like Watkins Glen. With the big carbs the wall was softer and at more like 6500 rpm. With recent headwork and cam ($$$$), there is no more wall at all! The 2" SUs seem to be a good solution to high-rpm breathing on a big-inch carbureted L6.

I *think* John's class limits him to 3 liters, so no diesel crank. That's gotta be one of the baddest NA L6s ever built. Sunbelt in Atlanta built it. Twernt cheap, I'm sure! I just spent some dough there on cylinder head/cam. Went 5 seconds quicker at Watkins Glen compared to two years ago! 2:22.? to 2:17.0. Sure, my driving improved, but 5 seconds?! My speed at the back straight increased ~5mph. 150 indicated! Oh, but that's close to 130 actual. Anyway, I still say a diesel stroker is a good idea. I'd sooner recommend that than throwing carbs/cam/headwork at a 2.4 or 2.8. Start with as much displacement as you can get, then add high-rpm capability on a pay-as-you-go basis. The stroker motor doesn't have to be as pricey as some seem to think.

I don't understand the comments regarding strokers. Machine work required on the crank? No, mine was installed as-is. Expensive/hard to find? They show up on Zcar.com for $250 all the time. I don't think there's an easy way to get it to work in an L24, however. In an L28, you need L24 rods and KA24E pistons (240SX/hardbody truck), and a .120" overbore. Works like a charm. 3.1 liters, 10+:1 compression ratio with the right head (N42 on mine). I ran it with stock 240Z carbs for a long time, with stock 280Z cam. Torque monster! Then I put in a cam and 2" Jag SU carbs and it pulled to 7000 rpm, no problem. I've got about 30,000 miles and ~40 track days on my 3.1 liter, and have had no reliability issues. It's a great setup, and you can build on it as much as you want (cam, head, carbs, turbo, etc.).

Mike, here are the carbs I bought. Can't wait to get them set up and running on the car. Cylinder head is in Atlanta now, though. Dan

225/45-16 should work. 225/50-16s might rub the fender lip. I've got 225/50-15s, no problem.

I don't like the looks of their adaptor bracket for the rear discs. See discussion at: http://www.hybridz.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001054 Dan Baldwin '71 240Z 3.1 COMSCC #7 SPB

Pontiac is about 1000 times more likely to get my business than Nissan, IF they build it. Man, looks like Lutz is already paying off for GM!

Larger braking surface area does NOT necessarily imply more braking force. Certainly Nissan had to design a system that properly biases the front to ensure they lock before the rears in both the Z and ZX systems. Benefits of rear discs is that it is possible to bias more to the rear since disks are less prone to lockup than drums. Also, disks will provide more consistent braking than drums under hard usage, whereas as the drum brakes' shoes wear and cause a long pedal. That's the main reason I went to the ZX rear disks, to keep from having to adjust the drums at the track, and so I could have the same pedal height at the end of a track session as at the beginning. They worked great at Lime Rock last Tuesday compared to the drums. All that said, I believe the drums are more than adequate for 98% of all 240Zs.

3mm overbore ('bout as far as you wanna go without ultrasonically checking the block) gets you to 2949cc, not *quite* 3.0. As for revability, the main issue is to improve the breathing. It's a myth that shorter stroke engines rev quicker (under load, anyway, the only condition that matters) than longer stroke engines. There is, of course, a slightly lower redline associated with a stroker, all other things being equal. But this penalty is more than offset by the displacement advantage (peak piston acceleration varies linearly with stroke, but with the SQUARE of rpm). Also consider that the KA24E pistons used with the stroker crank allow the use of longer 240Z rods, which alleviates the redline reduction slightly. And the KA24E pistons are good for 7000rpm in my 240SX, therefore should be good for much more in my shorter stroke 3.1 liter L28. I'm limiting at 7000 anyway. Why give away X% displacement to gain sqrt(X)% rpm ? Displacement rules!

Tires are almost never exactly the size/AR on the sidewall, lotsa variation. For the record, years ago, I measured a 215/60-15 Yok A509 and my stock, barely-used 175-14 Toyo spare, and they were both just over 25" in diameter. I know they often refer to old tires as 78 AR, but generally speaking, actual tire aspect ratio vs. advertised is on the order of as much as +/- 5% for new tires, probably more variation from 78% for old tires. Anyway, I'll stand by my comments that the stock 240 size is "more like 175/80-14" and that aspect ratio was "on the order of 80%":) Tall, skinny, ugly tires, even by the standards of the time. And those hubcaps, yikes!

Size was 175-14. Effective aspect ratio was indeed on the order of 80%, though that wasn't included in the tire size in those days. No new tires available in that size, that's for sure.