| Message |
"...you should fab up a new subframe, driveshaft, halfshafts to accept a 9" Ford 4.30 rear diff....you know, for increased responsiveness. The 4.10 Leader gears or 4.08 NA gears are not as responsive. Going with 4.30 will increase responsiveness.
It would be a massive shame to see all this effort go into improving the car's responsiveness just to be ruined with sub-par final drive gear ratios!LMFAO" Rather than addressing the topic at hand, you just continue to move the goalposts. - First, your criticism was that the layout was a waste of money, and presented no positive performance gains (based on the thin position that “Nissan did it this way, so they must be correct.”).
I countered by explaining that there is a potential performance gain from more direct piping to larger intercoolers. - Your second criticism was part of the first one – That Nissan chose the SMIC layout deliberately. That they were an enlightened team of engineers, and who are we to modify their design?
I countered by explaining that we modify all sorts of other components on the Z32, why is the intercooler layout so special? Additionally, Nissan was constrained by all kinds of other factors when designing the car (cost, emissions, safety, comfort, mass consumers), that personal owners are not constrained by. Your own modification list is a great example of this. - Your third criticism was that in order for a modification to be legitimate, there must first be a documented “complaint,” then that creates an official “problem,” and then the problem may be legitimately solved by an official “solution.”
I agreed that this FMIC layout did not arise in the rigid construct of - “complaint” -> “problem” -> “solution” – but responded that none of our breather modifications arose out of that construct. - Your fourth criticism was that the project was done in vanity, and not for performance.
We’ve already addressed that the modification is for performance. Also, the same argument could be said for your blind devotion to the SMIC location. Perhaps SMIC dedication is a vanity pursuit? - Talk of “outside the box,” “afraid,” “being unique,” “being different,” etc…
That’s just TT.net political noise. I refuse to play grammatical categorization with you. - In the SMIC location, each heat exchanger has it’s own air path.
No. The intercoolers and oil cooler are the only heat exchangers with their own air path in either SMIC or FMIC. Those two heat exchangers swap positions. The A/C condenser and radiator do not have their own air path in either layout. But I think your point was actually, a FMIC places more heat load on the A/C condenser and radiator, which I agree with, but believe can be mitigated. - Your final argument is a slippery slope argument: “Well if you’re going to change the intercooler piping in the pursuit of ‘response,’ you might as well swap to a Ford 9” with all the bells and whistles for response.”
First of all, swapping to a FMIC isn’t exclusively done in the pursuit of “responsiveness.” There should be power and torque gains across the power band with shorter intake pipes, with less bends, and larger intercoolers. So to limit the advantage of a FMIC to “responsiveness” is a mis-categorization. Second, doing the modification you suggested sacrifices top end speed. A proper FMIC layout does not. It sacrifices heat load on the AC condenser and radiator. Most importantly, it’s off topic. A Ford 9” rear end has nothing to do with FMICs or shorter piping, which is the topic at hand. What is telling, is that when I address each of your criticisms, you fabricate a new one instead of addressing the original. You’re desperately fabricating one criticism after another to hop around in the shifting sands of rebuttal.
In summation, I’ll stipulate to being a “cute white knight,” if you could address any of the 7 topics above without throwing a temper tantrum.
|
 |
| Follow Ups |
|
|
00:28:20 04/21/16
