Brad-ManQ45

I believe in my reading about the LT1 engine that the EGR is an integral part of the air/fuel/timing mix that allows a signigicant improvement in gas mileage by allowing leaner A/F ratio and more spark timing for low speed operation. Of course, most of us don't have much concern about gas mileage, or we'd keep the original engine, but if I were not going to do much in the way of modifying the engine for more power (just slap in the LT1 w/stock management and call it quits) I'd try to keep the EGR... Brad

I have to go w/the Challenger. Even though I've had a '73 Javelin and a '72 Mustang 351CJ, the Challenger has to be the best looking pony car ever made. Wish I'd bought one of those instead...

One place to look at what has been done on a production vehicle, if I remember correctly is the Ferarri 360 Modena. If I remember correctly (again) there was a small raised area in the center of the front air dam tunneling back to an enlarged area (providing a low pressure area under the front for downforce there), then making its way back to the rear diffuser (pproviding downforce in the rear. I believe I saw all of this in a Road & Track magazine a cople of years ago. This would tend to modify somewhat the flat bottom theory, which addmittedly is better than nothing if rake is provided, but then the windshield is at a higher angle of attack, providing more drag, and possibly leading to buckling/collapsing. Anyone else recall seeing the design I'm talking about? I of course have eliminated a lot of stuff that they did on the Modena, but another trick was to have oval/elliptical susension arms that had to go through the tunnels to get to the wheels etc. It was interesting reading at the time - maybe I can scare the article up - if I can get past the scary thought of searching through all the boxes from the move..... Brad

No such luck w/ other T5's - they have different input shafts. The ratios on the SVO Mustang are the same, but once again, input shats different. Find a wrecked ZXT 5-speed and get the transission from. Thi sis the only option.

Veeerrrryyyyy Nice ZR8ED! Hope mine looks as nice when finished...

Keep the rods the same (no reason not to - same pin height) and design the smaller diameter pistons to weigh the same as the larger diameter 350 pistons and you save money by not remachining/designing the hardest part - the crank. This one instance is extremely likely....

Is it STEELMAN or GOATMAN?

Actually larger turbos at the same boost produce LESS heat...the compressor doesn't have to work as hard.

Definitely check out the flow @ the pressure you need to run on your efi system. Basic measure (if I remember correctly is .5 lb per hp per hr. Gas weighs (?) ~6.87 lbs/gal (again - thisis the measurement I REALLY can't remember). Figure ~450-500 HP AT THE RATED FLOW - what happens at lower pressures used on most systems?

HRE makes wheels like this (custom). Depending upon size can get SUPER expensive.

My understanding is that even w/LT1 Edit, the stock computer doesn't read boost - you have to kludge other values. I too, would like to use the stock system, but won't until boost is capable of being read. BTW, Compression is alittle high on the LT1 (cam too big to?). I going to run more than 6 lbs boost, would probably want to replace rods. I've been researching this for a long time - I like the reverse cooling aspect for turboing..... Brad

Leonard: I debated whether to tell you about the electrical connections. I swithced mine around when someone else disconnected them (had to replace the boot between AFM and Turbo and he didn't mark 'em) and the blower would only come on once the car reached ~2500 rpm! Nissan in their infinite wisdom put the same half of the connector on each wire TO the equipment instead of swapping them around so that you could only connect them one way. Easily fixed as soon as I tried using the AC, but irritating anyway (much like the Q45's door lock switch - press down to unlock and up to lock). I just LOVE counter-intuitive.... Glad you found the problem(s). There are quite a few people here from ZCar.com - both are great sources for help.

These are called 180 degree cranks. Ferrari uses it in the 360 Modena. If I remember correctly, circle track racers used them (may still for all I know). A little rougher than typical V* crank, but that RIPPPPING sound is neat! Who can can tell us more! Brad

The combination you want - good launch, decent ride and big tires would seen to indicate coilovers - keep the length for wheel travel/squat/ride and the narrowed springs allow for bigger tires. Otherwise your weight transfer w/relocated perches won't be a good (shorter/stiffer springs) and ride will suffer. Am I wrong here guys?

I believe that K&N type filters are great for non-wire mass air sensors. Alot of talk about the oil mucking up the hot-wire systems. 'Course - this isn't a problem on our z's - the restrictive AFM is (vane/flapper type). I have a K&N on my '83 ZXT. brad

From what some of the transmission vendors are saying, durability is a wash between the two once upgrades are made. w/o upgrades the R700 has a bit more.... At least that's what I've read. If you're really gonna bang it, put in a 4L80E - TH400/w Electronic overdrive! ('course, you'll need the computer for it...) Hope this helps, Brad

Unless you have som bad problems w/your valvetrain, your dieseling problem is probably ignition related - not fuel related. Make sure your timing is set correctly, then check your entire ignition and secondary ignition circuitry. The person who rebuilt your carb obviously doesn't have a clue if he hasn't already mentioned these possibilities to you. From your previous post in getting the car home, I think we can pretty much rule out valvetrain problems, if once running it runs fine... Hope this helps... Brad

If I recall, this setup used ssome hobbs switches and a couple of cold start bvalves to add enrichment under boost. I think the turbo was a Rajay - but I could be wrong. Depends upon the price. What comes w/the kit? What shape is the turbo in? these ?'s and more to say whether to invest or not...

Hey Stealth! ? 4 ya. I just ran across (actually filing) my receipt from Turbonetics from '94 where I got the following: S/-72/WET/CS CHRA - watercooled centersection S-Trim Compressor Housing W/C Installation Kit and fasteners/o-rings and clipped turbine wheel. All for $588 overnite. Using stock exhaust housing on my '83 ZXT. My question is this - how does this compare to what ya'll are talking about in regard to A/R and trim? I would like a pint of reference for what to expect when I finally start upgrading the ZXT w/intercooler (air/water) and rising rate fuel pressure regulator. TIA Brad

I have Eibachs and Illuminas on the '83 ZXT and just put the Tockiko Performance shocks along w/springs & anti-sway bars from TMC Group on my '75. The '75 rides better - springs are not as stiff. Thisis just fine by me as w/the V-8 and Auto it will be my daily driver. These springs, much like the Eibachs, are progressive in the rear only - but not by much - not as much as the Eibachs which start out much stiffer (giving them bothe the 265 lb. jounce test on a back and front corner). Springs were $145 and Bars (1.125" front and .875 rear - I know - I'll take it off when the V8 goes in) were about $240. Right now the care has ZX wheels 215/60/14 Goodriches and rides nicely.

I realized at work today that I had my math wrong on the # of datapoint intersections that I posted - a result of 36 hours of straight awake - it is really only 1/4, not 1/16th. Ameliorating this somewhat is the ability to choose where those points are with the TEC system. I will agree that once you are used to the software and know it's capabilities thoroughly, one package over another is a matter of features - those missing and those you want! No I don't think it has too many features, I think that they have rested on their laurels long enough and need to develop current generation software (easy for me to say - I am a programmer by trade - I take the plans for what is needed data-wise and work with my end-user coommunity to create software that is both easy to use while giving them the needed capabilities - and a lot of the time I have to prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot), for use on hardware a bit more up-to date and faster. (I've actually been WAITING for this from them, because for the money I think they give valuta - I'm just a little dissapointed it has been sooooo slow in coming....) You makes your choice & pays your money FOR that choice. Just read that the stock computer won't read boost no matter what MAP sensor you have in it - that puts a damper on the deal. Gonna have to do soome more investigating I guess. Brad, haven't got an engine yet, Smith - signing off

If I recall (wasn't too interested in 2bbl carbs at the time, and that hasn't changed) a 4 bbl is rated at 1.5" Hg and a 2 bbl at 3". I have run Holley's of various sizes on 289, 302 and 351C engines along w/a ffew various size Chevy's, and can tell you that if you have even a mild V8, you really need a 4 bbl. Start w/600 vacuum secondaries for a mild/smaller engine, and go up from there, depending upon rev range. Remember that the smaller 4 bbl carbs from Ford on 289's were rated around 450 cfm - the Autolite carbs on 351C's were 750 cfm, of their own peculiear spread-bore pattern. A 289 whighrise intake and headers, small cam used a 600 to good effect (780 too much). Funny thing about the 351C, when using a Double Pumper Setup, It ran much better with a 700 than a 750 - the SBC liked the 750 better. Both using similar manifolds. Only reason to use a 2 bbl is to stay in class rules in racing - the 4 bbl will get better mielage AND perform better.

It was the Vector - knew I didn't have to name names.... I haven't even looked at their site since before hard disk crash ~ 3 mo. ago. I just believe the more granularity, the easier to deal with troublesome ares. Take a look at the graphic representation of some of the datamaps in the Holley literature, then image it done w/only 1/16th the # of intersections - and on a dated computer at that! For a turbocharged engine I firmly believe that due to the wider variation in manifold air pressure over a n/a engine, that this wouldn't be the best of all worlds - especially at the price they charge and enven thir software didn't look too friendly. Compared to the Holley, I'd say they have their work cut out for them if they want ot keep selling hardware. I don't konw if they have changed their policy about programming, but when I talked to them years ago, they would point to people whe were their distributors to get it all set up - even to just get the engine started - not even close to tuned. I will have to say though that their manual was/is a great window into EFI operations. I'm waiting for the next great leap, I guess, unless LT1-Edit will handle it all...

I believe in many respects, street EFI systems have to have more 'granularity' than racing systems. They are far more likely to experience a broader range of operating RPM's and conditions than race cars do. Add to the mix the possibility of turbocharging, and I start to have a real problem with at least one of the systems out there from the standpoint that they only have an 8X8 map for fuel and spark. Even though the computer does interpolation between points, I can't get past the broader range of temperature/rpms that the engine would operate under when factoring in boost, and feel that the extra datapoints will go a long way in making the engine live happier, stronger and longer. On a normally aspirated 6000 rpm V-8 this system would probably suffice. But if I wanted the same RPM range AND turbocharging, then I believe the combination of only 64 datapoints to cover the entire spectrum combined with an older CPU (read relatively slow) would tend to rule this system out. Too bad - as they are one of the few that will work with a mass air sensor (optional). I'm not going to name names, but I spent the bucks on their manual a few years ago in contemplating upgrading my '83 ZXT. A big plus was that Turbo Tom (hope people outside of Atlanta know of him) uses these systems and has programs for them - but he is down to doing custom work now and is EXPENSIVE. on the rother hand, to the best of my konwledge, they were the first (and possibly still only) aftermarket ECU company to have their product used in a car series and have that car series pass Federal Emissions guidlines in EPA testing. I know the MOTEC system is the racer's meow, but expensive. Accel is like most others- including MOTEC (Speed-Density). I really want a system that uses a mass air sensor because (in spite of the fact that I don't have to pass emissions) I would like to be as clean and as driveable as possible - no matter what I decide to do with the engine (who - ME change my mind?), and seeing the problems very hot cams can cuase on a 5.0 Mustang's early SD systems that the later MAS systems don't have is relatively convincing to me - that measurement of Air can help. I'm intending to use the LT1 engine and turbocharging it (after putting in new pistons and probably rods) so I am really looking at the LT1-Edit stuff. However, I am open to anyone's successful experience with any system approximating what I want to do with my engine. I'd really like to hear more views from those of you who who have tried one or more systems - anyone?

In CA, if your car does not have catalytic converters (you don't have to retrofit converters onto cars that did not have them originally), then you don't have to add them. You DO have to have the same year or newer engine, with all other emissions-related components for that engine. If your car is a '73 or older - no emissions at all!. I live in Atlanta, and anything 25 yrs old doesn't have emissions testing done on it so I'm cool w/my '75.