Brad-ManQ45

Turn signal lights betweeen the headlights in top grill = late 260/280. If thery are at the corners under the bumper early 260 or 240.

Just personal opionion here, but if they aren't Mililite(Panasport), BBS basket/Mesh, or Turbine type, I just haven't got the desire for it on my Z... Turbine types will be too small unless I could find some 0 offset 15/16 X7 or 8 in a 5 lug pattern. I am leaning toward Panasports myself...

Thanks for the reply Grumpyvette, I'll try to be alitle more specific in what I am looking for: I do not want a lot of low end for this engine as it will be going in my Z, and want to bias toward the top. A lot of this will be compressor-side related, but package-wise would like the intake to follow the same guideline. Which of the 3 generations intakes might prove better in this scenario? I obviously don't need a lot of low end torque in the Z and will rely on the turbo(s) for building the high end. Ii'm not looking for much more than 6-7 hundred HP, so if I went the LS1 route simply replacing rods and pistons should do me, so between early and LS1 might have a wash on prices (maybe wishful thinking here), so would the LS1 intake be better or the Stealth Ram? What would you expect lowend/midrange/topend torque wise (everything else being equal, which of course can't really happen but let's say so just for kicks and grins) out of these three manifolds? Since I'm not going super-high on HP I would probably sick w/stock heads in the case of LT/LS 1's, and eithe TFS or AFR for early gen...

Hi Grumpyvette! Hope to take advantage of your expertise which has always been highly valued... I am having a real problem deciding on what engine series to base a turbo SBC on: PRO's for each as I see 'em: 1st Gen - around forever/cheap 2nd Gen - LT1 - Reverse Flow Water Cooling 3rd Gen - LS1 - Choice of Aluminum or Iron Block and strong bottom end, R/S ratio. CON's for each as I see 'em: 1st Gen - 2 piece rear seal, less flexible w/accessories like A/C w/JTR 2nd Gen - Less Flexible w/accessories w/JTR mounting 3rd Gen - More bucks The telling factor here is that I will be using an aftermarket engine management system, as the stock for LT1/LS1 doesn't handle boost. I haven't heard of a good MAF one out there yet, but maybe I'm out of touch, and I understand that there may not be the neccesity of the reverse flow of the LT1 with the LS1 because of better head design as far as keeping the combustion chamber temps lower. By going to speed density and an aftermarket system, I realise with the LS1 I am giving up a lot of what makes the engine so great from a fuel efficiency standpoint, but wonder which engine series would wind up being best for the $'s. Perhaps others would also like the benefit of your wisdom, I know that I would. A thought on the intake manifold design as it pertains to turboing (Stealth, LT1, LS1) would also be appreciated... TIA, Brad

RacerX - some of the directions I have read said to just go over the areas you are painting with a Scotch-Brite pad and not sand. I am sure the sanding w/80 grit will provide a lot of tooth for the paint/bondo to stick to though. If you used the 80-grit BEFORE using the PA to get as much rust off, and then used the PA, would you want to use the 80 grit again? Also, I heard that ideally, you would lay a primer coat on, then use poly filler, and then another coat of primer to seal the filler to avoid moisture problems. I got this from the paint store locally, and was referring to using DP primer both times. I know Bondo is probably the most generic of all fillers, and I heard Monarch makes the best. Do you have any preferences, and is what I was told true about using the filler? Thanks.

If you're going to get a header, then make sure it's ceramic coated inside and out. A high flow cat would be good too - Random used to be the best AIR, but have no idea now - your performance oriented muffler shop should know. MAKE SURE you get a mandrel-bent exhaust.

I personally like DynoMax UltraFlows...

tres kewl... I will now attempt to eyeball your engine location and two other methods to see if there is any major advantages/disadvantages. Thnking mainly about accessories - P/S and A/C...

What rubber moubts are you using for tour setup? I am of course assuming that it is not solidly mounted...

6.5" is too narrow for 255/60's and handle well...

I'm sure they are both 90 degree engines. I would suspect deck height and head width to be the major culprits, but not having both engines side by side couldn't say...

I would like a copy and could post it on a web page for others so you won't be bothered...

Congrats!

I have an '83 FSM, and in the diagram for the engine room harness, the only Black and White Wire is for the inhibitor for an Automatic GL. Perhaps the '81 Diagram would help: http://viewyachts.com/chris/yellowz/81ecuharness.jpeg.jpg According to it, the "T" shaped connector w/Black & Green wires is not used. Assuming the blue wire in the lower picture is actually blue & red, that connector is for some sensors - w-temperature, thermal transmitter, air regulator, efi relay... Sorry I couldn't be of more help but nothing matches on my wiring diagram.

What year ZX is your harness from?

http://home.comcast.net/~brad-man/index.html This should get ya'll to the ITS cage article on my page

Get one from a Q45 if you want a 3.54:1 ratio. The 300's had like 4.10...

I certainly did mean Z31, and I am not knocking them either, I simply prefer either earlier model for esthetic purposes and their engines. If I could fit in a Z32, I'd be doing an LT1/LS! conversion on one of those for everyday driving/road trips!!!! I hope no-one feels like I was stomping on their toes...

A few questions and observations: How loud do you want it? How much do you want to spend? What type of driving do you do/contemplate using the car for? For an NA car, I would have a 2.25" mandrell bent system put in with a DynoMax muffler. 2.5" is overkill on an NA, and (this point has been hashed around a zillion times already), 2.5" causes unnecessary droning in the exhaust system and adds weight. If out and out top end is your goal, then 2.5" is ok.

TC is electronic traction control working in conjunction with the rear brakes. I have a Q45a, with all the bells & whistles and know a bit about these cars for anyone who wants to know....

When you are under boost and you press the clutch in, your turbo was supplying boost, which the engine does not need now (no load) this is the BOV venting excess pressure...keeping the turbo spinning.

Thanks for the replies.

At the risk of incurring everyone's wrath. Yes the Z06 was an option in '63, the Z28 came out in '68, '75 to '84 'vettes were pigs and the new Z06 'vette is NICE - a friend has one. You might say that Chevrolet had first dibs on the "z" - no-one who had one or talked about one referred to it as a Camaro, although I always heard the "28" with it. I personally love the looks of the early z's, which is why I'm building a '75 V8, I can appreciate my ZXT for comfort, conveniences and handling after the appropriate upgrades on a daily use basis. I have Eibachs on both cars, Illiuminas set on 3 all around on the ZXT and HP's on the 280Z, with big bars on both, and the ZXT is much more civil every day on normal roads (rides nicer even with 16" wheels and F1 Steel radials). Have NEVER liked the S31's, and find the S32's too cramped vertically (for me - 31" inseam 6' - my eyes are above the top of the windshield when my arms - 35" can get to the wheel), and too heavy, although BEAUTIFUL. When I hear someone say they have a "Z" I always ask what year and blow them off if after '83. Aside from the looks (S31 - purely subjective, certainly), and weight (S-32) factors, I feel that Nissan went to a totally different place with these cars, making them much more costly to maintain and buy parts for, and abandoned what made them GREAT overnite - well engineered, affordable and class dominating (love road racing at Rd. Atl.) I personally don't get offended by the 'vette community referring to the Z06 as a "Z" in this respect. Perhaps we should say that everything should be taken in context, and make sure which context is being used before we lose our cool... and even then allow others their illusions - unless of course their illusion insults you.

As a last resort, you may decide to pay for an HKS head gasket tha I'm sure will have the correct holes, but I am sure they are expensive. You could also get out your Exacto knife and cut the gasket holes yourself. I remember doing this on a 351C engine I had, on the suggestion of one of the Ford Hi-Perf book that I had. The only problem with this is that I seem to recall that there was some kind of (gas filled) o-ring as part of the turbo head gasket from a post on zcar.com. If this is true then the HKS route may be the best choice. OOPS - someone on ZCAR said they're not available any longer. Someone else said he knows someone who will make it for $100. However, I just looked in the Victoria British catalog and the is a head gasket for turbos and all NA engines built starting 3/81.

Thanks for the info - I am definitely interested in the machining costa for the CV adapters and axle shaft work. Parts are a variable that sometimes you luck out on - I have a few friends and contacts...