Tony D

Since I can't edit these damnable posts and add this stuff later... BTW, in addition to to the above reasons for the front plate being useless, the 'witnesses' is specious as well. The front plate, at ANY give speed will be a mere 'flash' compared to the rear plate as the car drives to the horizon. If it is going slow enough to get a good front-plate reading by visual I.D., you would be better spending your time checking out the driver, what he's doing, and then picking up the plate as it goes away. Try this: Stand at a drag strip at the 60 foot line---or even the 1/8 mile point. Close your eyes, and at some point during the race before the car reaches you open them---try to read the plate before it passes, then watch it and try to read it as it's going away...you will find 'going away' is far easier to do. The mind doesn't process things coming closer too well (refocus), but for some reason something going away is easier to keep in focus. Front plates are useless, save for Photo-Revenue Enhancement Purposes. As long as the plates aren't altered to give 'reasonable doubt' when presented in court. I ain't sayin' any more on that issue! (shhh!)

You BOTH have OEM Bumpers. One is OEM, one is OEM JDM. The spacing on Japanese Plates is further apart than on North American Plates. You will notice in the back of the car, there are two unused plates for the rear plate as well. I had to make a bracket to fit my US plate to my Fairlady Z's, though on one of them, the PO had drilled out and installed some bolts. Same thing happens when the US Spec Cars go to Japan: Plates don't fit, got to drill out the second set of holes, or make an adapter bracket. Good Excuse for the 'no front plate' though!

Michigan HAD a two-plate requirement till the mid 80's, then they changed. Of course, they used to issue new metal plates every year as well. It was found it was cheaper to just put tags on the plates, like many other states did. Let me ask you, since you are insistent on 'wanting a good reason' as to why the state of Michigan only issues one plate instead of two: When Michigan went from Two Plates issued by the State to One Plate issued by the State, were the FEES paid to the Sate decrease by half? The answer: No, they did not! This is simply a way to DOUBLE the fees (profit) to the State by simply reducing the amount of service or product provided. It really is that simple. If you saw the Michigan Secretary of State revenue statements during the years involved, you would agree completely. It was a selling point for the removal of the front plate. There was no compelling reason to put the plate on the front. For all it's worth, photo enforcement is a Bogus reason for employing a front plate as well. So are Amber Alerts. Since the Amber Alert has been instituted EVERY case has been from someone driving alongside or BEHIND the suspect vehicle. The closing rate is too great to get a proper reading on a front plate. They really are totally useless. Unless you photgraph them. And in that case, a plate is useless, a sticker could be used as effectively without increasing drag or unaerodynamic flat, vertical surface on the front of today's cars! The way OBD is going, Licene Plates will be useless within 10 years as it is...remote target acquisition through remote monitoring driectly from the vehicle's ECU will be commonplace. If VIN-Coded Transponders aren't legislated before then, that is... FAR more effective than relying on Human eyes. Think about 'photo enforcement'---it still can be foiled fairly easily. But a VIN Transponder going through the same proximity radar field that currently triggers the cameras...with a link to flash download of the vehicle's ECU current OBD Status giving vehicle speed, throttle position, etc....Fourth Amendment? What's that? You were, after all, breaking the law! Remember guys, OBD2 had protocols specifying 38 open channels to be left in the archeticture for "Remote Monitoring Channels"---Wonder what was applied when OBD3 was instituted?

Gives new meaning to the phrase: "It just hit me, I should tie down my speakers!"

Same as guys badging HLS30's as "FairladyZ's" here in the states. To them, it's just words. Sad, huh?

Braided covered fuel hoses are available from Industrial Supply Houses. My local Industrial Hardware store stocks Metric Fuel lines (the braided style) in 8, 10, 12, and 15mm. It's waaaaay up high on the shelf, and you miss it if you aren't in there all the time looking at what they have. For Vapor Lines, I was tempted to redo them in 15mm with what they had, but they also have the nylon adapters to step it down, so I stepped all my 15mm lines down to 12 or 10mm, and everything still vents fine. Plus, I was able to route several (3) 10mm hoses through a single hole in the rear floor, allowing me to silicone/heatshrink seal them tightly against vapors, and simply cap the remaining holes to keep vapors out. Routing the 10mm lines is much easier, you don't need molded hoses for the bends, and even if you did you could prebend complex shapes out of hardline and simply connect them all with straight tubing. I also did this on my son's 510 Wagon, and his fuel system successfully held 5psi in the fuel tank 12 hours without leakdown! How's THAT for vapor integrity?!?!?!?!

That's why in the civilized world we tick our 7's!

Head is FIA Homogolated at 35mm Diameter.

I say drool to the Sunny Pulsar GTi-R. I whipped one around for a while here in LA, and it was G-Teching at 345 to the ground. Similarly the Bluebird SSS of 87 (or was it 240RS?) had similar setup. 345HP in a car the size of a 1975 VW Rabbit, with All Wheel Drive, and an engine that spins past 7000 pulling and pulling and pulling! Nobody made it past the top of second gear without an Ear to Ear Grin! The only other car that pulled like that little thing did was a Skyline GTR 400HP V-Spec... That thing pulled a ridiculous speed in second gear as well! And my Nostalgia always-wanted was a Nissan Be-1

Isn't a 710 a Laurel, or was that a Violet? I forget what the 610 was named, but it was like a Laurel Clone with a shorter nose. Then there was the Sunny line, which was our B110... I always liked seeing a 'Sunny California' in the breakers...always made me smile! I totally forgot the "Fairlady" Nomenclature, and now must quickly send an Addendum to the SCTA Rules Committee with 'They, Coupes and 2+2's, were ALL called "FairladyZ's" in their home-market of Japan' That should be another leg-up in the argument they are 'the same series of vehicles' for classification purposes... DOH!

Really? The HLS 30 did not have that type of switch, it was on the faceplate of the radio, and more akin to a serrated toggle than a rocker style. This was the same style that I had on my S30 (Fairlady Z). It is the first time I have seen that style switch mounted there!

Chances are you didn't gain anything at WOT (peak power) since every single device you mentioned has absolutely nothing going on at 'full power' levels on the engine i.e. "Wide Open Throttle". Actually, chances are good the only thing accomplished was increasing emissions drastically at partial throttle and cruise conditions, where the engine spends most of it's time anyway. Unless the engine has the fuel curves reworked, removing the emissions equipment will do nothing for WOT performance. It's the fuel delivereed compared to the air ingested that makes power. The remover of the devices didn't do anything substantial enough to increas airflow, nor fuel flow, so no more power will be had. I dynoed my car before and after a CAI kit, and compared with a K&N filter in the stock box, I could not quantify any power gain whatsoever on back-to-back series of three runs within 20 minutes on a Mustang Dyno. I think the restriction of the element is what gives you power, and it's the differential between the stock paper element and the K&N gauze element that gives the power anybody sees from a CAI. Hell, the 280Z already has an air cleaner in the same spot as the CAI filter---it's already got CAI! As long as that black snorkle-muffler thing is not on the inlet to the stock filter box!

I'm telling you, I've heard this car run at the MSA event four years ago--unless something seriously radical (and from the description it's not, other than possibly a bump in compression) had been done, some basic detective work should figure this out. I am on board with the suggestion of the O2 sensor. But using Stock EFI with these kind of components is a recipe for something that won't run well, but that you can spend a lot of money putting together. In many cases you make more power with lower compression and a stock cam when using the stock ECU. Sine you say the injectors have been changed, I'd probably say that is why you are getting 10MPG... It's a poor mismatch of parts. I see this all the time. With a standalone you can make a lot more power and not have these problems, but you will have to do some diagnostics first to determine where you are. Sticking a standalone on something not running right in the first place is another receipe for disasterous results. Bogging/Smoke form the exhaust form this setup will be traced to AFR's in the 9's when the O2 Sensor is put to it, my prediction. Megasquirt would be sooo nice to make it fuel correctly according to demand and load, as opposed to what's on it now. That cam is mild enough to give decent idle vacuum and resolution for a MAP based standalone. But for a stock EFI setup, that kind of idle vacuum will make you run RICH...fuel pressure too high for the load on the engine...just a function of how the FPR works. Adding bigger injectors will exacerbate the problem. Like said above, don't get depressed about it. It's all fixable. I just think some red herrings were being chased initially.

Oops, that would have been me... Like $1.04... Being cheap doesn't pay. I laid in a pretty healthy bid late. Shipping will cost more than the manual! Yes, there are Early Skylines in the USA... I now have a much appreciated Christmas Present for an old friend!

Oh, this is 'Scott from Florida'---I found the post. I have seen this car, firsthand, in the flesh. This car should NOT need anything other than regular pump gas, without a doubt! This is a problem in the EFI system dealing with mismatched components or a sensor that has failed...the typical old stock EFI stuff. "BOG" in these EFI Cars can be as simple a matter as misadjusted AFM causing a delay in the throttle response. But the 460 Cam is not the friend of the Stock EFI system. I'd suggest trying Megasquirt (programmable EFI) but at this point it may just be compounding a situation based on inexperience/unfamiliarity with the EFI systems as a whole. This car is 'not' built so radically as to 'need' anyting but pump gas.

"Carburetion" "Fuel Delivery System"--tomato tomatoe...same series of things affect it. I somehow missed the website. But if it's puking black, and it's EFI, then fueling is definately incorrect---and ditto again for the mileage! "Stock Injection with Larger Cam" is a recipe for terrible drivability. They don't work well together at all. That would go hand in hand with the drivability issues...possible injector swap there overfueling and the typical Bosch Band-Aid approach to fueling something not-stock. Sure you can drive it, but it's nowhere near 'right'...

I have to agree with JM on that last point! Well....maybe with Webers. Mine got 12mpg routinely, but admittedly it was not driven 'casually'... But my Triple Mikuini Blowthrough setup in my 73 averaged 17mpg being hammered through Carbon Canyon to and from work in Brea from Corona every day for three years+ That car had 350 RWHP, and on open-track events could get as low as 5mpg when actually USING 350HP on a consistent basis. Hard daily commuting the mileage was 17... I would say something is wrong if 'casually' driving it the thing is only getting 10mpg. From what I am reading here, it's a mix of gasoline formulation incorrect for the carburetion---that will cause you to run with more throttle to get the same acceleration over the stumbles. And this 'black smoke out the tailpipe' : Air Fuel Ratios in the 9's or worse. 10:1 AFR's will not puff black out the tailpipe from my experience, and with the fuel mileage I'd say something was seriously wrong with the Carburetion. My guess is there was a lot of overjetting to cover transient flat spots, or other bad manners. "Fat is Driveable" was the axiom, but it's not right from a serious tuning standpoint.

"I have been reading that people cam and get more power from l24's than l26's, i'm assuming thats because there are parts available." Make a more reasoned assumption: People are idiots and plainly incompetent when setting up engines. Sad fact is the internet and shade-tree myths that surround our hobby are borne of a culture of ignorance. Most builders slap something on and just say it increases horsepower. People say 'strokers don't rev' or 'the rev limit of the L24 is higher than an L28'---both are pure rubbish. Properly prepped, or hell, even equivalently prepped, the bigger engine will give you more horsepower, period. An L28 will rev to 7500+ easily with stock components on the bottom end, you just have to use the correct cam... If you have an L26, build it. There is no replacement for displacement.

On Carl's comment about the cost of the G-Nose. When I shipped my 73 240Z back from Japan in 1989, the wonderful loaders did damage to my one-piece. At that time, the multiple piece Nissan Nose was right around $1750 complete. In Japan when I first arrived in 1984, with a favorable Yen Rate, the headlight buckets complete were 30,000 yen each ($100 thereabouts), the Upper Piece 18,000 yen, and the lower apron price escapes me, but the in-country cost from the Naha, Okinawa Prince Distributor RETAIL was somewhere well under $1000 (somewhere in the $750 range seems about correct)---within two years the exchange rate more than doubled that cost in American Dollars (Still only about $1500, complete) while the Yen Cost stayed stable. At that point, a one-piece replica was hanging on the wall of the local "Home Depot" style store for 30,000 yen (so the one-piece JDM knock-offs were a whole $100!!!), while the two piece EVA Replicas were 45,000 yen ($167). I was buying used one-piece units from junkyards for 500 yen if they had damage (and for Japanese "damage rendering it useless and not worth repair" is frighteningly little!) and complete units with hinges and minimal cracking around the bonnet corner area (where the on-piece units always seem to crack) for 1000 to 1500 yen! You can do the math for 268 yen to the dollar exchange rate. The unit that is on my 73 right now was bought from one of my favorite junkyards on the south east part of the island...I gave the owner 1000 yen for the unit, and he gave me change of a 500 yen piece, laughing saying 'go get a hamburger!' because he couldn't believe I was willing to spend that much for a Nose with 'corner cracking'... Ahhhh, a different world, a different time!

Yes, Frisselle's car utilized a one-piece replica, not a factory G-Nose. Many racers used the one-piece for crash-replacement ease, as well as availability. It's much quicker to swap one of those one-pieces that to screw around with the individual componentry. Plus, most sanctioning bodies allow 'replica parts conforming to factory pieces'---so FRP knockoff fenders, unitized lower valences, etc. were common. As long as they were generally replicas that were visually indistinguishable form their stock counterparts they would be allowed. One-Piece Camaro Front Ends comes to mind. A few Dzus Fasteners and some pins and the whole clip is off for total service access. I want to hand out a big thanks to Alan for supplying me with the copious documentation---last evening I forwarded close to 12 MB of electronic data to the SCTA for their determination on the nose issue. More than likely this protest will result in a rewriting of the rule book to update it (at least that is the word I am getting so far). From the feedback I got, from the Rules Committee's viewpoint, there are two outstanding issues: 1) Was the G-Nose a "Production Part"? Did 500 vehicles get produced that were available from any dealer for consumption for the general public. (The FIA Homogolation Paperwork should suffice to satiate that need.) 2) Is there a connection between the Coupe and the 2+2 that would allow them to be considered 'the same series'? Which, according to SCTA Rules would allow ANY production piece available for 'the series' to be applied, wether it was available in that configuration from the factory or not. That in my mind is clear since "R&H" Prefixes onto the base vehicle's "S30" are no different than a Camaro with an inline 250CID Six, and one with a Big Block 396---each of these Camaros would have a different VIN code sequence---yet they are still Camaros. Same as with Corvairs in early/late production, earlies have a 140CID engine, and accompanying VIN Sequence, lates have a 164CID engine, and are also Coded respectively---they are all "Corvairs". The "G" Prefix, is more akin to something along the lines of a Four-Door versus Two-Door VIN Coding Sequence like in a Corvair, or other family sedan---they both are Corvairs, but they have different VIN Codes deliniating the four door version. This was somewhat along the lines of my supporting argument to say the 2+2 is simply a 'sister in the series'---the Series of "S30" vehicles. This has to be resolved, as the protest will hold up the awarding of records at Bonneville not only in the G-PRO Class, but possibly ALL Production (PRO) classes, as well as all records set or broken later in the year in ElMirage. IMO, it was poor form for the gent to do the protest at the time he did---mucked it up for everyone involved, and pressured the Rules Committee into fast action when deliberate action should be taken. There was plenty of time between our Rookie Run in November where we were within .300 MPH of breaking the record and May's event when we backed it up within 1.489mph. It should have been done in the off-season, not 3 events into the season. In either case, wether the protest is upheld or denied, having the time in the off season to forage for replacement parts suitable (namely the STOCK Non-G-Nose Headlight Covers) would have been nice. I forsee changes in the 2008 Rule Book! Whatever the outcome, it is what it is... I, of course, will let everybody know what the ruling was when I get the decision. Again, thanks to Alan, and to all for the assistance and kind words of support. All we can do now is sit back and wait.

I now have seen the same fallacious statement twice within a week that the L24 or L26 'produced more power' than an L28. That is a false assumption. Each engine was an increase in power, through torque. The more torque you have, the less rpms you need to use to make the same specific horsepower. The ratings systems changed between all the years the L-Engine was in production. For an equalizer, this is a general set of figures from my experiences dynoing many of these engines in 'stock off the road' running form these numbers are at the rear wheels: The L20A (JDM) will show somewhere around 75-95 HP, Rated at 130 HP. The L24 will show somewhere between 100 to 115HP, Rated at 150 HP. The L26 will show somewhere between 115-125HP, Rated at 162 HP (?) The L28 will show somewhere between 125-145HP, Rated at 145 HP. The only S20 I ever saw running on a dyno spun the wheels to 185HP at around 8000rpms, but it was not 'stock'---though externally you couldn't tell anything had been changed. I believe it was a 2.2 Bore-Up kit with some Special Cams. They were rated at 160 HP (PS).

Depends, earlier cars will have a smaller reinforcement. 73 Spec cars and later have something akin to a guardrail inside the door, but you can get behind it... difficult but not impossible to do with a thin spoon and some of the longer paintless dent removal devices.

I've been all over Brad Frisselle's car, got some nice photos of it after the local LA shop reworked it in...95? I know it spent some time at the Peterson Automobile Museum right after the restoration. Got a few photos of it from that time period---all on film. Anybody remember film?

Yeah, when operated according to the owner's manal I guess the consensus is they should be 'self adjusting'...more or less! Thanks.

Show model or not, it surely puts to rest Nissan's Intention to have it fitted to the car. For the 74 Show, that could arguably be said it's a '75' as evidenced by the EFI on the show model as well! Power Windows, ooooh tasty!