Tony D

I'm in the same boat as JeffP! Labor will eat you alive. I do not begrudge a gent making a living, and having run a shop, I realize $65 hourly is really a low rate for fabrication. I decided to buy a bandsaw after seeing how well the Harbor Freight unit Jeff uses does, and do my own thing. The way I look at it is 24 hours of labor is one man working for three days (also including running for parts, etc...) so while a custom shop might do it in 6 hours, they also most likely will charge $120 for the labor (like they do here in L.A.) A decent fab shop will charge a higher price because like stated, they have all the goodies to do it quickly, and their hours are all they have to make money on, so the question becomes do you want it done in 6 hours at $120 an hour, or in 12 to 20 hours as a competent fabricatior works out the setup, and goes at it from ground zero with you paying for setup and development of the final product. Any way you look at it, labor kills. So I don't think you are out of line on the charges---but I would question what took him three days to do. One of the reasons I use steel tubing is it doesn't require the setup like aluminum, and I can finish it with my oxyacetlyene rig if I so choose (comfort level). Suggest your fabricator use pre-bent mandrel bends like JeffP suggested. They are cheap from Burns Stainless (as well as several other places) and really cut down the charges for custom bending. If they mandrel-bent the tubing all together, then that is another story, and the cost is right in line with what they charge out here. Don't get discouraged. And relocate the boost sensing line for the turbo as stated---you have pressure drop now across the system (probably 1.5 to 2psi) so you will want to make up for it. Good luck on the project.

well, at 15psi, the 2.8L is roughly 5.6 litres at 6500 rpm, so the 600cfm might be just about right. That, and the fact that my old draw-through system would run 12.27 to 12.40 at about 17psi and it used a vacuum actuated holley 650.... When dealing with N/A applications, a Z will also effeectively use a 650 as we had one for a few passes at ElMirage, until we went to Webers which have a flow potential of 1100cfm, which is "way too much" anynway. Theory goes out the window when racing is involved. Results are results. Don't get hung on theory.

there are myth progenitors out there still repeating the old "22% larger runners" on the turbo manifold. B.S. they are all the same, except for one L-Intake, and it's not normally talked about in a performance board. Take a look at the LD intake runners, and you will find a bigger runner. But big runners are not necessarily what you want. Velocity is just as important as total flow, if not MORE important. I don't think the size of the runner is that big of an issue on a Turbo motor below say 400HP (maybe 500hp...). It think it's much ado about nothing.

yer right, sleeper! The number Tetsu used was 400hp. I'm not sure where the 600 number came from---maybe that was the NOS shot--It would not suprise me one bit if he had some ridiculous 200 shot for spool-up. The car had phenomenal accelleration, and amazing response.

That S130 belongs to Tetsu Takakamo. It was at the National Z Car Convention in Las Vegas 2000. It was a real hoot to ride in down Van Ness after returning from Vegas! He will be returning for the 2004 Convention in L.A., but who knows WHAT he will bring this year. I'm sure it will be something good!

Anything that will hold the pressure and temperatures involved will work. I prefer the valve to be flange mounted, and teh blowoff line to the pre-turbine area to be a flexible hose. For years I used heater hose (good to 60psi and 250+ degrees) on that downstream section. Sparco makes some nice high-temp silicone stuff you could use now... Barring heater hose! For the small signal line to the top of the valve, stiff fuel injection line is what I used (1/4" was the connection size on my valve) and later changed to Stainless steel braided because I got it cheap (like FREE)... The DSM I believe is mounted on the OE Application by all flexible hoses, right? That would make mounting easy if space is tight, as you could run flexibles to wherever you had to place the valve. I have another CART style valve I am working on for a plenum style manifold over six throttle plates. It is a pain to duct that one as it's a 360 degree discharge. For that, I probably will have to bite the bullet, and let everyone hear it when I shift!

Yes, I heard. Bummer. This is incentive.

And when you consider the increase over the STOCK motor, you are easily doubling a good stock L28, and almost tripling the HP of a decent L24 in stock trim. Arguments could be made over "tuned" -vs- "tuned" but overall the increase is not just across the midrange for torque. If you are conparing and contrasting the differences between 3.0 and 3.1, than maybe it's valid, but it's STILL more where you can use it, so that alone is worth the effort for some people. I mean, in Japan there was a custom crankshaft/rod/piston kit sold in the 80's that gave you a 3.5L L-Motor, and so far, I don't see anybody here with one of THOSE. Would that only add to the confusion about which is best? For me, that would make it a REAL "350Z"!

I will agree with ZR8ED, I think the 40's will be enough. Also the specs he listed: 145 main jet. F16 emulsion tubes 195 air correctors 60 accelerator pump jets 55f9 idles 36mm chokes Were almost identical to what we ran in the 45's! The only difference being we swapped to a 135 jet (from my street car) for the run at altitude at Bonneville. Like John C posted, the GT spec calls for 50's, and with the 45's we had on the Bonneville car, the clear choice was 55's, but for the cost, we went with 45 TWM throttle bodies and TEC2 EFI. What we did was pick up HP in the upper ranges (extended usable HP to over 8500rpm). What I DID notice that suprised me was that the EFI had a somewhat "ragged" dyno curve, but the Weber curve was like someone took a felt-tip Sharpie Marker and drew a curve on the chart. Their atomization and power delivery is amazing. Even the dyno operator confessed he would have gotten the same HP we got from the EFI from the Webers (55's) but the ignition timing available from the Tec 2 gave us reliability, plus we could make adjustments in seconds with the laptop whereas changing mains in Webers to correct for altitude was kinda a pain... Tuning of the Weber Carbs is a dying art. Many people just drive a car in a "good enough" state of tune. And when they ride or drive someone's vehicle who has taken the time to dial them right into the needs of the specific engine it's like night and day! I have three sets of 45 Webers, what are they worth? One cannon manifold, one japanese manifold, one Skyline manifold (won't fit in a Z---DOH!) Maybe I should sell some of this stuff... Oh, and I'll also add that there's still a dollar in my pocket for a stock-bodied Z without a G-Nose breaking 150mph with a 3-litre Six or smaller N/A motor....

The blowoff MUST return in the section of hose BETWEEN the AFM and the Turbocharger inlet. I replaced a section of hose with a metal pipe allowing my 1" blowoff hose to vonnect there. If it's metered by the AFM, and is not dumped back into the metered area of the air system, you get rich stumbles to beat all hell. Angle the piping so the blowoff is directed towards the turbine inlet, and ideally directed to spin the turbine in the direction it's supposed to be turning or you risk as premature compressor stall from trying to pinwheel the turbine in the reverse direction while rotating at high speed. Not good for airflow. The direction gets more important the higher the pressure you are running at. When you are blowing a 1" 15psi burst of air at the turbine, you can get a nice pre-spin for on-boost response if you engineer it all right! Lets also consider the terminology here: the H-Car crowd has popularized the name "BOV" or "Blow-Off Valve". In the dark days, when turbos were not as responsive as we have today, it was called the Compressor Bypass Valve. This implied a dual function: During non-boost operations, vacuum in the intake manifold would open this valve, allowing N/A operation to bypass the turbine allowing it to pre-spin unloaded, and allowing a bigger inlet for the off-boost airflow and better off-boost drivability. When the boost would come on, the valve would close, and when the throttles snapped shut on-boost, the spike in vacuum would open the valve, allowing the bypass of compressed air out of the intake system in front of the throttles. It really shold sound more like a big "sigh" than a BOOM or WHHOOSH! The big sound is from stuff dumping in a very inefficient manner. I think Corky Bell made a nice big bypass valve for years---it "sighed" nicely if you even lifted your foot a little bit. Compressor response in a car so equipped was much better than without, or with a "hard pop" valve. So logic would dictate that kind of valve (which is what you are talking about) would HAVE to be (dumping the pressurized air) between the AFM and Turbine Inlet as it was simply a second intake tract to the throttlebody when off-boost, and therefore would need to have metered air in it for proper ECU response. It should go both ways depending on what mode of operation the engine is operating. People have gotten into the idea that the valve is to just "dump" the excess pressure and get rid of it, but such is not the case.

yeah, I just saw the other view and realized you were using the injector mounting screws to mount the rail. I thought they were going to the manifold directly. My attempt was to say make an "H" shaped setup, using the same strap you have on the top to still pull it down. The standoff tubing would position the rail a set distance from the manifold, and the same strap (bar, whatever...) you have now on top would let the bar pull down onto the crossbar of the "H", positioning it both top and bottom. But since you are using the stock injector bolts, that isn't possible since the injector is there. maybe a stouter piece of sluminum with a small teat that engages the bottom of the rail... I have some O-Ring injectors I will probably be mounting in a stock EFI manifold, but that's a ways off... I would think a "Lazy S" bracket from the two stock fuel mounting brackets tapping into the bottom of the rail would work out. I think JeffP has a photo on his website like that. I know he recently went from hose to O-Ring injectors I believe. Till then...

You know, I've been thinking aboutthat strap clamp setup. I don't see why you couldn't use shorter "standoffs" of the copper tubing to limit the crush towards the pintile end of the injector, and use a second strap, with no limiting tube, to pull th top of the rail down onto the injector, and tight against the lower strap. This should solidly position the rail from any movement... Seems so simple, I don't know why it didn't occur to me earlier.

is anyone working on deciphering an adaptation to the CAS that is block mounted? It's my understanding they have a similar pulse as the CAS in the Dizzy, just done with hall effects, then conditioned and shaped to square-wave signals in the unit itself. Maybe I will take that spare O-Scope JeffP was talking about and see what that thing puts out... Anyone? Anyone?

Heck Randy, you're EFI right? So it goes to prove the fact: Carbs or EFI, HP is HP and when you USE it, you all get the same mileage! I feel better that somene else is happy and proud to say they got 5mpg in their car! I have managed to break into single digits on EVERY car I have owned, including a Geo Metro. I surmise Fun Per Mile is inversely porportional to Miles Per Gallon!

someone needs to enroll in Basic Measurment Techniques for SPC in Manufacturing 101...

I bought the MS for $110 as a kit. It took me five hours to assemble. I bought the Relay Board Kit for $45, it took me about 1 hour to assemble. I bought the latest Megaview so I could do final tuning without a laptop, it was $100something I think, but I have not assembled it yet. The DB37 communication cable from the MS to the relay board in the engine bay took me about three hours all told to get to my liking, cost was neglible, I think the ends cost me $9 each or soemthing like that. Oh yeah, and I bought the stimulator/simulator box as a kit for $45, and took me half an hour to put together. For the price, there is NOTHING that will touch it! Then again, I stepped in whole hog, and bought three of everything, as there are several vehicles that really need EFI to be more daily-driver friendly!

I'll add my .02 here. The O-ring is not sealed by the crush of something pushing the rail from the backside towards the pintile end. It is a static seal. The rail only needs to be held immobile in relation to the O-ring when it is compressed and in the rail, on the injector. You should be able to rotate your injectors when they are installed before tightening down the Nissan Clamps. I can rotate mine. Anyway, while that clamping method shown looks functional, it seems it would put a lot of crush-stress on the body of the injector. Even if the aluminum tubing holds the crush off, what keeps the rail positioned (from moving closer to the pintle end of the injector)? I can see how it keeps the rail from blowing OFF the ends of the injectors, but what keeps it from going too far ONTO the injectors? Normally the rail is positioned with a block to the manifold, that tightens the rail onto the injectors, but stops it before there is too much crush on the injectors. On those setups, I can rotate the injectors. They are totally static sealed, floating on the O-Rings (good for visco-elastic frequency dampening!) with no stress on the Injector Bodies at all. At least after reading this, it all makes sense what the hullabaloo was about...

I'll add my name to the list of "Megasquirters". Installing a setup modeled off the great and all powerful Mobythevans latest spark-n-squirt post (thanks for the stickie!) I really suggest you go to the site and cruise around Pamos, and you will see how seriously foolish you look making the statement that it sounds like someone pushing a product. This is called "word of mouth"! Go to the yahoo forums site and watch the record of monthly site traffic, and you will see that it is a user-supported device. Everybody there helps everybody else simply because most of us have been around since V1.0, and have watched the bugs get debugged, watched more come up, and watch them get solved by everybody pitching in. It is this camaraderie that leads to the EVANGELICAL FERVOR of those involved with the systems. There are plenty of writups and photos in the MS galleries on their sites. The one that sticks out in my mind is a Green and White VW Microbus that resides in Long Beach CAlifornia AND HAS PASSED CA SMOG TESTING! You want a enthusiastic supporter, TALK TO THAT GUY! There are people in the UK IMP club talking how they were at a car show doing brodies on the tarmac, causing quite a stir in the Sumbeam and Hillman community. Soon after his little display ther was a flood of Imp owners buying MS for their little cars. And then there's Rick Yaocucci, who on his homebuilt Megasquirt has set countless Land Speed Records in his Turbo-Busa Motored Streamliner (which has been timed at Bonnevill at over 300mph!) Yeah, if it can support 619HP at 10,500rpm on a 1350CC Busa Motor, it think it will work JUST FINE on my desired output in the 300HP range form an engine almost 2.5 times as large. This Project has been an open and free exchange of information from day one. See if you get that from you local Electromotive, Motec, or Haltech distributor.

well let's hope Gary and the crew keep their promise on delivery of the new system. I like their DCOE throttle bodies, make for an easy bolt-on for people who already have a manifold and air box setup. It goes to show you that the Datsun is still a propular engine shoice if they are tooling up for a production run. Maybe they understand with the competition from Auzzie Sources that they have to keep something new on the plate. I wish they had followed through with their SU Conversion Package. Would have saved me the trouble withthe leaking fuel rails on the injectors I'm installing in the float bowls of my Flat-Tops...

Looks like I will be buying a couple of GM Modules. I found a 77 Dizzy in the shed today, so that looks like an easier install than trying to figure out that 81CAS down by the harmonic damper... So it begins...

WOOHOO! That's the info I needed! You da man Moby! I'm off to download the files now. And off to autozone for that "hot spark" GM chip! Thanks a million!

Moby, Have you posted the interface between the Turbo Distributor and that GM module? That would alter the equation on what I'm currently doing with my Turbo Z being I have 2 83 turbos to choose from, and one 81....I was going to use the 81 with the conventional dizzy drive with the MSD and BTM for control, but if the spark timing is available from my second altered MS box, firing a GM HEI module (what, like $39?) attached to the stock coil and transistor, I may go back to that setup---especially if you like the results you are getting! And am I reading you right that you have downloaded the ignition portion of the program to the SAME MS unit you are using for the fuel, utilizing the idle output to fire the ignition? If this is the case, I am THERE if it will all fit in one box! I don't want to use up my spare just for spark when I can get MSD boxes for under 110$... On an aside, I called my original 91 Chevy G30 Van "MobyVan"--I miss that as a tow vehicle...no speed limiter!

On my black car, I averaged 17mpg during daily commuting duites (carburetted blowthrough). I was rather proud that I could get as low as 5mpg when I stayed on the boost at track events...

to run decent times with the MS you need about $200 and about an hour of tuning. This is why anyone with one talks raves about it. I suspect many people who have paid 5 to 10X that for the processor alone just have heartburn that they possibly overbought. Good times with a Z are somewhat more a function of tires and setup than a complex Fuel Delivery Scheme. A case in point would be Norm's 12.90's on SU's. For the PRICE, the MS is VERY hard to beat. Have you ever gone to the MS board and looked at the "it runs" listing. There are plenty of them out there worldwide. Most who use them are more interested in getting a driving running vehicle day to day, than boasting about their numbers. And Rick's Turbo Busa motor is in a Streamliner, not a bike. And 313mph is a bit more impressive to me than quarter mile performance. You can run 12.50 on a Crown Kit and a Holley four bbl in a 240 all day long---that in itself is not really all that hard to do. Richard's Z/ZX service had a low 11 second car with that setup in 1980. Anyway, I can think of at least a dozen Z'ers who have this setup, and who are very low-key. I am currently debating wether I will use MS (since Rick's Success at Bonneville) on my S130 Bonneville car, or wether I should buck-up for something a damsite more expensive, for the simple addition of spark mapping.

"I am going to poo poo this one. Where are people running astounding times using a megasquirt? I am just under a rock, or do we have people running mid 12's with them? Just curious." Well, lockjaw, is 313mph fast enough for a megasquirt powered vehicle, or how about 619Hp at 10,000 rpm on a Turbo Busa Motor? Take a look at: http://www.turborick.com Rick has successfully garnered several Land Speed records with his Megasquirt Fueled Turbo Busa Powered Streamliner. Going 313mph+ makes 12's look way weak.