Ace-Garageguy

Yeah, the old muscle cars were heavy barges too, and the weight was one big reason I fell out of love with American iron in the early '70s...first time I drove a 911S, a roughly 2300 pound car, and realized that even with its 'wimpy' 190hp, as soon as the roads got a little twisty it would run away and hide from the V8 sleds. I know enough about strength of materials and engineering (rather a lot, actually) to be well aware that the Camaros, Mustangs and Challengers just don't have to be as heavy as they currently are to meet the crash standards, but they're probably overbuilt considerably to satisfy the lawyers...and the legions of potential owners who would rather have the feeling of being 'protected' by their vehicles in crashes than actually learn how to avoid them. Yeah, welcome to the present. PS. Just as an example, the EPA rates the current Challenger with the 5.7 and 6-speed at 15 city, 18 combined and 23 highway. Not all that impressive to me (and I tend to believe the EPA numbers are ALWAYS overly optimistic) because my 5.7 1989 GMC truck (which I converted back to a carb when the electronics failed, and is about as efficient aerodynamically as a barn) gets about the same fuel mileage as EPA lists for the Challenger...which costs a LOT more, and is vastly more complicated. Bottom line, there's no question that modern combustion chamber design and electronic engine management have added power and efficiency to engines worldwide, but overall, I'm just not seeing improvements that really justify the millions of man-hours and billions of dollars spent on vehicle R&D over the fairly recent past.

Beyond words. Way beyond.

Skylar, thanks again for taking the time to get this info to me. Very much appreciated.

Thanks Austin. Great stuff on that site. I'm really getting interested in these contemporary hot rods. Lots to learn.

I sure do. There's a DC-3 in this area that occasionally flies over fairly late at night. Quite the time-travel experience to be lying awake in bed in the dark, and to hear that.

Again, a big thanks to all for the help. I fell instantly in love with the recent Rocket Bunny mods for the 240, and the plan is to build this...

I have to agree with that. Every time I hear one fly over, I run outside to listen as long as possible. I worked for a few months on the Kingman, Az. airport next to the hangar where several CL-215s lived in the off season. The engines were Pratt /Whitney R-2800s, and they'd push 'em out and run 'em up several times a week. Wonderful.

Your project looks really good...nice lines. I started out to do much the same thing fairly soon after the '50 Olds hit the market, got as far as a stock fastback mashup, and ran out of time.

I think I remember seeing a Tatra make an appearance in the 1997 film "Gattaca"...but I could be wrong.

Ok, I should have said "any vee or opposed engine you're likely to encounter in a car"... You are correct sir...I have never once laid a wrench on a Harley engine of any kind...and I should have been more careful about making a sweeping generalization. I have, however, worked on a few of these...which also have zero-offset.

Excellent.

Thanks Miles. I appreciate the response. All the 180 SX kits I've looked at so far appear to be earlier designs than the S-14, maybe one generation back, S-13? The unibody appears to be based on the same front frame rail stampings, but the floor, gas tank location, etc. appear to be different on the one's I've been able to locate.

Thanks again, Mr. Welda. i'll definitely follow that lead down. The pix of the engine look plenty good enough for what I have in mind.

Hell, just reduce everything to ones and zeros. 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101001 01101101 01100101 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100011 01101000 01100001 01101110 01100111 01101001 01101110 01100111 !!

Shouldn't that be "light and reft"?.

Good luck with the re-spry, Ray. I think R&M makes a finned-head version in 1/25 similar to this... There's also an OHV Ardun in 1/8 scale, so you know what it might look like... http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/?showtopic=70944

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate the responses. Miles Garrod (chunkypeanutbutter) mentioned a 180SX as a possible donor, but the ones I've found look to me to be an earlier design than the S-14, with different suspension, fuel tank, etc. I was thinking a Toyota 2JZ-GTE, which is, I believe, the engine in the partial Supra kit I have on the shelf. The Nissan RB26DETT seems a better choice. I'll look into it. Again, thanks for the responses. Much appreciated.

Mr. Obsessive knows. If he says something works, it works.

I posted this over on "questions" and didn't have much in the way of responses. I know some of youse guys build a lot of Asian cars, and I know very little about them, as kits go. Any of you guys know if any of the Nissan S-14 Silvia / 240SX kits are full detail? I bought a Tamiya Skyline GT-R curbside (cheapo on the scratch / dent table) thinking I'd maybe convert it to a 240SX, but it's too much work, and I'll probably build it as-is anyway. This is what I'm after. Must be the S-14 generation. I've looked a lot online for various kits, but I'm not getting photos of the contents laid out. Thanks in advance.

I have to agree with that, for sure. But...information has value, and though I agree it's a rip to stick you $20 for a few photocopied pages they didn't produce originally, and probably don't have any legal right to re-sell anyway, sometimes if you need stuff, you just gotta cough up. Like the new avatar, by the way.

Fit everything VERY carefully. Tape or otherwise jig your "glass" in position. Use one of the PVA glues like this. Run a very small bead in enough areas to securely hold the "glass". The stuff dries entirely clear (you can use it for instrument faces, too) and cleans off with water, so no fingerprint worries like with epoxy, CAA, or styrene cement, but work carefully anyway. Give it plenty of time to dry thoroughly, because it has ZERO strength wet.

Most old Roots-blown engines with a front-mounted fuel-injection pump will be plumbed alike, pretty much. There may be some detail differences, but they ALL work the same way. This is a general schematic for an Enderle setup, but it is pretty much the same as period Hilborn and other units too. Disregard the "port" parts of the schematics, as I believe the engine you're doing only has nozzles in the injector body itself. Also consider the "nitro metering valve" to be a "fuel metering valve", including gasoline. It's usually located on the blower in the vicinity of the injector unit, and is connected to the throttle linkage that actuates the butterflies. Below is a similar system, somewhat different, but basically the same. If you understand the function of the system, it's simple to do believable plumbing every time. Note the black rectangular throttle valve (fuel-metering valve, sometimes also called "barrel valve") connected to the linkage that opens the throttle butterflies. Supply and return lines clearly run up to it from the bottom. There's a large-diameter hard-line running out the rear of the valve to a distribution block (hidden behind the hat) and smaller hard lines running to the individual injectors. Again, ALL THESE SYSTEMS DO THE SAME THING. Look at the schematics, try to understand the functions, and you've got it. And here you go, again. See what I mean by "same but different"? Fuel supply and return lines running from pump to throttle valve, this time on this side of the injector body, with smaller soft lines running to the individual injectors. Works the same way, does the same thing...just arranged a little differently.

Those two old IMC instruction sheets reminded me that I got my first insight into the concept of monocoque structures from them, and a fascination with them that would eventually lead me into aviation structural repair as part of my career.

I find my 'obsolete' prehensile tail to be a distinct advantage in some situations.

Then... ...and now...