Brad-ManQ45

They haven't specified how much the computational ability of the CPU has changed. The old system had/has only 64 datapoints. I realize that with interpolation smoothing things out that you may not need much more for an NA or turbo in a racing environment, but for street I would like 16 x 16. A little more granularity, while harder/longer to program would be much better over a wide range - particularly in a boosted environment. I will say though, that Electromotive was the firstest w/the mostest, and if they have upgraded the computer and capabilities (beyond dataloging and direct coil ignition) then I'll seriously consider it.

Thanks Denny - for all of us!

Dude, I have an '83 ZXT and let me assure you of one thing - if you DON't have the Auto system, don't put it in. These are expensive and time-consuming to troubleshoot. I have just gotten mine working after a reputable shop managed to bugger the works up. Thanks to FSM and a bit of logic, got it working again. This falls under the category of having the analog dash and converting to digital - WHY? just my .02

Nice, nullbound! Wher in Atlanta are you, I'm in Marietta. Love to see it in person. Email me via the link if you want - I don't see your link. Brad

Definitely mismatched heads/cam/Manifold/carb. If you're going for all out performance... Single plane and Holley - yeah! Not necessarily the DP but the tried and true 3310 (non-emissions 780) since you have the lower stall torque converter (unless you have the money to change that too). Remember that this is the vac secondary carb that came on Z-28s/vettes and fast Fords (square bore pattern unlike the emissions 780), much more forgiving with an auto with low stall. The big factor here is the heads (mucho dinero to get different ones). I believe if I had to do one inexpensive thing, I would change the cam to what would work with the rest of your engine combo. Currently it is the one thing really out of line with the rest of the package, and the PACKAGE is what counts. Yo are experiencing the effects of parts that don't work together. Try it - you might like it - it is the least expensive route. Then you can determine realistically how much faster you want to go at what cost. Just my .02 Brad

Dart manufactures or markets both aluminum and cast iron blocks for this also. Worl products has blocks also, but cast iron only. Cast iron has a 125 lbs weight penalty. Both manufacturers (I believe) can give you main bearings in either 350 or 400 size. Chekc 'em both out...

Thanks for the info!

Beauty! If you're ever down south..... brad

Generally, redline is the highest engine speed that the bottom end (reciprocating assembly), top-end (valvetrain), intake and exhaust system are designed/built to support. You didn't mention new valve springs, but if you bought a cam kit that had the springs in it then your valvetrain would definitely support the rpms you saw for the engines lifetime. Since we already know the induction system and exhaust let you pull the stated rpms, the only real question is - what was done to the bottom end? Most stock bottom ends should have no problem with 6000 rpms (Pontiacs possibly excluded). As long as you don't keep the rpms up there a lot and only wing it occasionally, no problem. From an engineering standpoint, the higher you go, the less life to the bottom (and top) end - more stress/fatigue). Hot rodders have always been willing to sacrifice a little engine life in order to spin higher and produce more power. They also, depending upon bucks of course, have options that most manufacturer's won't take advantage of when building their bottom ends (for production cars) - forged cranks w/generous fillets, cross-drilling, longer rods. Grumpyvette posted a link to an LS-1 article that will give some insight into what goes into designing an engine - the trials with oiling was an eye-opener. Manufacturers are starting to pull out the stops again in engine development - look at the Honda and Nissan high revving engines - short strokes and LOOONNNNGGGG rods, special (sometimes not forged) cranks (per LS-1). Remember, every buck saved is a major deal, leaving room for the hot-rodder to fill the need with better parts to make the engine last longer at higher rpms. I'm sure I haven't covered this very well, but look at a few of the projects the members here have posted at what they have done and you'll get the idea that we all have a case of "stock isn't good enough" and MORE POWER is only good enough until we need ---- MORE POWER. Power costs money - how fast do you want to go? Looking forward to more responses on this one! Brad

Well Done Scottie! I have been impressed with your dedication, and even more with your engineering abilities. You, along with a number of others here have been an inspiration to any number of members of this forum, and I would like to take this chance to thank all of you collectively for your willingness to share your experience, knowledge and humor. Everyone - and you know who you are - THANKS! Now Scottie, just another little thing to go w/that new rear... WE NEED MORE POWER!

I too wish to thank everyone who has given of themselves to the people who view this board. I am a member of a few, but this one is the best! I'm sure I'll reference a lot of the posts again in the future as I'm working on the '75 conversion, having gone through all the other posts to catch up and then 'maintaining' by viewing as often as possible. Thanks again all! Brad

The ZX Daytona kit can be found at: Reaction Research I have been eyeing the GTO kit but will only do that after everything else that can be done IS - if then

While we're at it, usually the sensors for traction control work for the ABS system also.... 'nuff said? Brad

Spreadbores have the same amount of air flowing through the smaller primaries at low rpms, therefore have a higher amount of velocity and fuel atomization. Unless you are turning the vacuum secondary spring on the 750, the spring that comes stock will probably never fully open. I am of the opinion you are better off with a smaller carb w/all barrels the same size (on a single plane intake) and use the vac secondary spring that will open the secondaries fully at redline, that just bolting on bigger carb w/vacuum secondaries that may not fully open. I believe the fuel distribution will be more even, and the fact that you are utilizing ALL of the carb at high rpm (with smaller bores on all barrels) vs only a percentage of the secondaries on a bigger carb (with larger primaries ALL the time - there goes the fuel mixture velocity). I believe that given a little visualization, almost anyone can imagine the difference in airflow patterns between primaries and secondaries on a spreadbore, and a little more thought and visualization should bring the concept of using ALL of a smaller carb as being better than only PART of a larger carb. The larger carb will lose a degree of crispness due to the larger primary bores over the slightly smaller carb ALL the time, and you'll never fully utilize the secondaries. You simply wind up with more area under the curve with a properly sized carb/manifold combination. Dual plane manifolds tend toward the same distribution problems, but also usually have a better low end signal to cover up the effects of a larger carb. I think a lot of people go too big on carbs on a single plane intake when 'piecing' a project together. Go with what is documented in the real world as working well - and if you have a single plane intake, you may be surprised at how low you can go in carb size! All of this is JMHO, mind you....

Thanks for your responses guys - If only I could type in the wee hours I'd consider this question a success.... I too, have seen the one in JC Whitney and thought it a pretty good deal. I guess I need to scope out the welding supply situation around me for the need to buy/rent tanks.... Thanks again!

I will be purchasing a MIG welder soon. I will be fabricating a rotisserie, welding in a cage, floor pans and qtr panel and fender patch panels. Could any of you with experience recommend which ones to look for for this? I don't want to go overboard on something I won't need (metal thickness capability). I have already started checking into some welding classes at an area tech school....

I would suspect that since you are going to run a single plane manifold, that you will want all barrels to be the same size for best fuel distribution at high rpm. This would tend to eliminate the Q-Jet and one of the Holley 750/780 vac secondary's - the 3310 is the square-bore one (non-emissions). Of course, w/vacuum secondaries there is the chance that they won't be fully open even at redline - even on a 350. I seem to recall that the hot DP for the 351C Ford engine was the 700 DP - picked up a lot under the curve and sacrificed NO top end compared to the 750. I think the choice of a 650 vac would be close to ideal for a 327 - particularly if the barrels are all the same size, because the secondaries would probably be all the way open at redline. I would also suspect this could be the start of an interesting thread in it's own right.... Brad

If you are going to drive it on the street or any autocross/roadrace activity, don't weld it. Spend the bucks on a Quaife.... JMHO Brad

In the absence of light, Black radiates heat better. Your best bet in reducing underhood heat is to ceramic coat the exhaust manifold/headers (inside & out- downpipe(s) too). Paint your block whatever you want - any heat kept in will be radiated from the radiator, the air going into the radiator will be blowing through the engine compartment - no gain to be had. I personally like the lighter color engine and engine compartments - easier to see leaks and light up in case you have to work on them on the side of the road at night/in a shop. JMHO..... Brad

Why would you want to be hauling around the extra weight of those water jackets???????

Glad it worked out! I will be doing one of these swaps myself if I ever learn to weld well enough to replace a qtr panel and patch the fenders and remove the driprails. Then it will be paint, wiring, brake/fuel lines, interior and FINALLY engine.... I'm just a glutton for punishment - I've always wanted to do a ground-up - always done engines, suspensions, brakes, bodywork (no welding) on the cars I've had in the past, and helped by brother restore a '66 Datsun 1600 (Short Windshield). I'm gonna experience fun, pain, anxiety over every decision, but most of all SATISFACTION - especially the first time I crank it up!

Chevrolet first used fuel injection (in production) on the '57 Chevy and Corvettes. Volkswagon had fuel injection on the TypeIII engines (Squareback and Fastbacks) in 1970 for sure - I had one. Fuel injection has been around a LONG time and Chevrolet wasn't the one to develop it.

The carb you have should be just fine on a 350. Chevrolet used a 780 on the Z28 (302). I had a Holley 780 on my 351 CJ Mustang before going to a 700 double pumper. Hd tried a 600 to start but like the 780 MUCH better up top. I had all the springs and cams for the accelerator pump at one time...this was back in '70's and 80's - wish I'd never sold that car.... Something is Definitely wrong with the carb if the secondaries don't open.

Thanks for the info - interesting about the tranny, as I'm thinking 4l80E for the turbo v8... Brad

Looks soooooo sweet. Very sanitary. You're and artist man - I hope I can get my engine room looking HALF as good.