Michael

I'm a career civil servant in the federal government. I sit on my butt all day and eat bon-bons. When that gets boring, I play tetris. Last year I got a promotion.

If a float is stuck at the pivot, then there will be a fountain of fuel gushing out of the corresponding bowl's air breather tube. This happened to me after I removed one of the bowls to replace a sight plug. My Holley sat for 5 years while the engine was being rebuilt. Over those 5 years, the only discernable damage was rotting of the rubber O-rings in the needle/seat assemblies. You might want to check those. Other than that, is is unlikely that age alone will cause the carb to misbehave. Perhaps it is worth taking to a local mechanic, just to have him turn the various screws and widgets back to stock settings - and, perhaps more importantly, to get the piece of mind that the unit is basically OK? In other words, I would not buy new parts before ascertaining the old part is defective, instead of merely out of tune.

I’m going to disagree here; this guy’s combo isn’t that bad! Comparing the specs, it is actually not too different from the Goodwrench 260 hp "stock replacement" engine. Most of us run <9.5 compression with cast iron heads; will one point of compression make that much of a difference? For the technically minded, consider how one point of compression affects the DCR with the valve closing profile on the typical flat-tappet hydraulic cam. BTW the "torque cam" should be good for maintaining cylinder pressure with the relatively low static CR. Yes, the intake manifold is mismatched, and maybe costs 30 ft-lbs of torque at 2000 rpm; maybe more if the carb is too big; even more if the manifold’s runners match poorly with the intake ports of the heads. But it’s not like it is magically turning a 500 hp engine into a 75 hp engine. Even with “only†200 hp and perhaps 250 ft-lb at the crank (160/200 at the rear wheels, give or take) this should be a reasonably enjoyable car to drive, provided that the TUNING is right! I’d not worry about swapping parts, or second-guessing oneself about mismatched this or that, and instead would focus on good, reliable timing and fuel delivery. Make sure that the rings are holding compression, that there are no chunks of metal in the oil pan, that the carb isn’t puking fuel and that the plugs are not fouling. The rest, I think, is of secondary importance for the time being.

Sounds like the next piece in the collection should be an AK-47. I thought about getting one, just out of homage to nasha rodina, but the only ones that I could find were Romanian or Chinese!

The trick is to have no dreams. Then you can't be disappointed and won't waste your money.

Mine had similar problems (454, stock HEI, 750 vacuum Holley on a Edelbrock Perf rpm, choke mechanism removed, moderately healthy mechanical roller cam). First it ran OK, then on successive attempts (days, weeks) it would run worse and worse. Then I realized that the distributor hold-down bolt was not completely tightened, and over time the distributor had rotated counterclockwise! Not sure about vacuum leaks in my case, butI did observe that if I blocked the carb venturis with my hands - even slightly - the engine would cough and sputter; if anything, it was starving for fuel. And when cold, it would need 1-2 minutes of ~1500-2000 rpm operation before it could settle into a stable idle. Once settled, it idled fine at 800 rpm. Fuel leaks from the venturis at idle (incorrect float level). My next step, since parts of the combo are definitely weak links, is upgrades; capacitive discharge ignition system and aftermarket distributor, 850 CFM mechanical-secondary carb (probably Barry Grant mighty-demon). I'm looking at a system that could communicate with manifold vacuum (below the throttle blades, not above) with dial-back. But this is for a fairly aggressive engine; if yours is more mainstream, then throwing money at it is probably an ill-advised solution (as, indeed, in may also be in my case...)

The light-weight, stripped-down, moderate-hp elemental sports car is an excellent idea in theory, but doomed in practice… 1. The demographic that used to buy sporty-cars is now buying trucks and SUVs. “Sports cars†today mean high-end low-volume flagships or souped-up sedans 2. There is very little market in 2-door anything these days; if it’s a car at all, people want 4-doors; otherwise they get a truck (see above). 3. Polls about muscle cars - for example those in Hot Rod Magazine - consistently show that while low-buck high-performance strippers (cars, that is) are popular in theory, when asked specifically what they wish to buy, people overwhelmingly prefer air conditioning, heated power seats, keyless remote and sun roofs. So much for low cost and light weight. 4. The aforementioned safety and environmental regulations. Look at what happened to the Pontiac Solstice; cute little car, but 2900 lbs??? That is probably more than a Datsun 810 (forerunner of the Maxima) in the 1970’s. 5. There is something in the American market that overwhelmingly leans towards large cars. Maybe small cars are viewed as wacko-lefty Euro-boxes, or maybe it’s something about romanticizing the great open plains and the giant redwoods, or maybe its just compensation. But whatever it is, European-type compact cars are viewed in America as cheap, low-rent appliances for those too poor to afford anything better. 6. While today there are more car models than ever, there are surprisingly few dedicated platforms. It may cost a manufacturer more to strip-down an existing model than to keep selling it with its luxo features. And it is absolutely cost-prohibitive to launch an entire new platform just for a single line of low-cost sporty car. 7. The OEMs and the market have pretty much decided that RWD is a luxury feature. Worldwide, compact RWD cars are essentially universally dead, except for a few niche convertibles. 8. We - the performance enthusiasts - are a very small minority. And among us, many are too cash-strapped or too frugal to buy a new car with performance in mind; if we do buy a new car, it’s reliable transportation for the wife and kids, or a comfy long-distance cruiser with a smooth ride and a punchy stereo. So, again, who would buy the stripper sports-car? The arguments are the same for related questions: in model lines with multiple engine options, why is a manual transmission only available with the wimpiest engine; why is the strongest engine often only available in an options bundle with the bling features and gadgets; why isn’t the JDM or European-domestic market model available in the U.S.; why do OEMs devote great effort towards making fuel-efficient engines and low-drag bodies, but do not place any emphasis on reducing vehicle curb weight; and so forth.

I’m looking at the Crane 6000-6400; retails for around $250. Its other advantage vs. MSD 6AL is that the Crane uses switches to change the rev limit, while the MSD uses plug-in modules. I will probably get the Crane PS92 ignition coil, http://www.cranecams.com/index.php?show=browseParts&lvl=4&prt=166 . But what to do for a distributor? I might spring for the Crane 1000-1500 “electronic†distributor; nice piece, but they certainly make a nice profit off that one! And, Crane’s manual for the 6000-6400 ignition box mentions all sorts of distributor combinations, but does NOT mention their own distributor! MSD makes something similar, but that one requires removal of the cap to change timing settings, while Crane’s has screwdriver-accessible switches on the distributor body.

First, congratulations on finding a 400 SBC! It is almost universally true that 70’s-80’s full-size trucks have disappointingly poor acceleration, even with large-displacement engines, at least in stock form. Part of the problem is the wear on the engines, part is in inefficiency of the driveline, part is the weight of the vehicle; but the worst part is the abysmally poor breathing capacity of these engines in stock form; with stock intake-heads-valvetrain-exhaust, especially for a truck, net hp ratings hovered around 150. Even the big-blocks barely made it over 200. Volumetric efficiency was poor (70%? 60%?) and peaked at something like 2000 rpm. Even if the bottom end is in decent shape - bearings are not knocking, rings are holding compression, cylinder bores are not damaged, and so forth - you will most likely find yourself replacing the pistons to get adequate compression, and replacing at least the rod bolts to get piece of mind about “high rpm†reliability (I was going to say "high = 5500", but they I noticed that dr_hunt mentioned a 4500 rpm limit!) . If you buy modern aftermarket aluminum heads, it is hard to avoid having to get new pistons. And this means a bottom-end rebuild. I started with a 454 BBC from a 1978 Suburban, and ended up with a complete bottom-end rebuild, though I did retain (after considerable machine work) the stock block, main caps, crank, rods and damper. For a first iteration it is not inconceivable to keep the engine completely stock (in hindsight I should have done the same) while you solve the systems-integration issues of the swap, and become familiar with tuning and troubleshooting the engine. Acceleration won’t live up to V8 hybrid expectations, but it is a good baseline, especially when money/time/tools/resources are tight.

Everyone seems to be ecstatic about real estate these days - or was that oh-so-2005? I might be biased, but it seems to me that here in the Midwest the economy has been lethargic since the 1990’s. The coastal/southern/urban boom in real estate left most of the Midwest (with the exception of pockets of affluence, such as Chicago) largely untouched. But the 2006 downturn has affected us in the Midwest, just as it hit Boston and D.C. and the bay area. It’s analogous to the 1990’s stock market boom: plenty of stocks remained flat in the 1990’s, but they tanked in the 2000-2002 bear market right along with the former highfliers. My point is that an investment real estate play in a small Midwestern city sounds really risky, unless you have insider connections in the real estate industry. Who are the investors behind that fabled “Vision 2025†to rejuvenate the city? Can that hypothetical urban renewal project really pan out without an influx of high-end jobs to buttress the tax base? Could an old urban neighborhood be gentrified without an influx of yuppies? Why would the yuppies, techies, wealthy retirees etc. want to move there? How is the downtown itself doing - are rents rising, occupancy rates solid and new buildings being put up, or is the place just sort-of puttering along, blipping up with the major’s latest pep talk and sinking again with the latest news of another factory closing down? What about the overall demographics of the region - how has the population changed in the past 5 or 10 years? My recommendation would be to consider selling the property.

The Kirkey (or similar) sheet-metal seat might address your situation without having to remove the sheet metal storage compartments. I have a drag-race Kirkey in my 280Z, mounted to the roll cage. I’m only 5’8â€, but the firewall is set > 6†back from stock, shortening the legroom accordingly; but there is still about 2†remaining between the seatback and where the storage compartment front-walls would have been (on my car they were eventually removed, but only after the roll cage was built and the seats were installed). One of the members here, who is about 6’2†and ~220 lbs, sat in my seat and commented that he was “relatively comfortableâ€. So, given your stock firewall location you should have plenty of legroom and headroom with the sheet-metal seat without further mods to the Z unibody. However, you will have to mount the sheet metal seat to an actual roll cage. It would probably be illegal - not to mention unsafe - to attempt to mount the seat to fixtures bolted to the stock mounting points in the floor. And the seat would no longer be adjustable (would not slide back and forth).

After protracted delay (sorry) I posted a Photoshopped version of the front-end treatment of my Z, which is intended to illustrate a stubby or degenerate G-nose. The poor quality of my Photoshop skills make the nose look like a fish-mouth, but the idea is that there is a small intake for the radiator. The objective - and the reason for looking at something like this instead of a G-nose includes the following: * benefits of a short front overhang, vs. the G-nose * a short, bulbous nose should be much less aerodynamically sensitive to changes in the car's rake angle * speculation that such a nose would work better with off-the-shelf air dams This is largely incompatible with retaining a front bumper, and as drawn will NOT fit an L-6 (engine would be too tall). The Photoshopped picture differs from the real thing only in the size of the radiator intake - which, on my car, is too large and aesthetically (not to mentioned aerodynamically) not especially pleasing. There are also some similarities to front-end treatment of Tony D's car, which in my opinion is a very clever solution - but the present version attempts to be more streetable and should in principle work with a stock hood and fenders.

Until a couple of years ago there was a “membership number” - counting up, based on when the person joined the forum - displayed under everyone’s handle. I was member #9, in the original group started by Owen. Over the years the Gen I SBC came to be largely supplanted by the LS-series; naturally-aspirated V8 swaps came to be rivaled in number (if not outright exceeded) by turbo, RB and other 6-cylinder options; chassis-strengthening discussions originally based on rust repair and strengthening for V8 torque morphed into road-racing lectures; aerodynamics threads came and went, and now there is planning for an actual wind tunnel test. 7 years ago I was wrapping up grad school, living in an apartment. I had no running car, as my $600 280Z - formerly my daily driver - went under the knife for the V8 swap. For a graduate student a bicycle was ample transportation for getting to campus, buying groceries or going to the bank - even in Los Angeles. Now I live in rural southwest Ohio, have multiple daily-driver beaters for my 45 mile round-trip commute, and a semi-streetable V8 Z that’s 8 years in the making. 7 years ago many of our recently-joined members were in junior-high or even in elementary school, while some of the now-retired guys were still working full time. Junk yards still had Z’s lined up, while fair-condition muscle cars could still be bought for a month’s pay. Over the years I have been posting regularly but sparsely, averaging just under one post weekly. Too bad that some of the most memorable posts are gone - the ones on the psychology of dating, the perils of stock market investment, the frustrations of rural life, the pros and cons of going to war, the tension between individual liberty and state paternalism, the meaning of cars as expressions of personal creativity or mere instantiations of material consumption. But the posts on “I love big blocks but am so frustrated in getting mine to work” are still around.

Testing at NASA Langley will cost considerably more than $3500. Which tunnel were you planning on using? The 30x60 was run by Old Dominion University under contract for a while, for NASCAR-related testing. I'm not sure exactly how that arrangement fared, but from what I hear ODU is no longer involved. Anyway, a large enough tunnel with a ground plate and capacity to handle full-scale cars is going to be pricey. The Mooresville place, which is the subject of the current planning, seems to be uniquely suited to moderately-priced automotive testing.

So evidently... (1) different-looking (and different-named!) spoilers tend to produce similar results. (2) production of downforce is fairly easy, but getting the downforce without extra drag is not so easy. This suggests, in my view, the value of testing a "simplified" spoiler (straight piece of sheet metal) with adjustable inclination angle. Generating lift and drag data vs. inclination angle, one would have a table from which to select the optimal setting for a given application - be it highway cruising, road racing, drag racing etc.

The bumper is going to be another exogenous variable that will complicate comparisons of front-end treatments. My recommendation is that once we do the test on the stock 240Z and move to the 280Z, take one data point with the 280's stock bumper, then remove it, repeat the data point, and henceforth no longer use the bumper at all.

The hypothesis that "adding up a bunch of little things can make a huge cumulative difference" is attractive, but again, be prepared for a possibly counterintuitive result. I would venture to speculate that flushing the glass, deleting the rear-view mirrors and windshield wipers, and taping-off the body panel seams is worth several hundred counts of drag (the lingo is one count = 0.0001 Cd; a stock Z's Cd is about 0.45, so 4500 counts), but the effect on lift/downforce would be minor. One suggestion for the testing program is a large sheet-metal spoiler, of the type posted earlier by Johnc, with adjustable rake angle - from 0 degrees all to way to, say, 75 degrees - to be varied in 15-degree increments. I do not believe that there is a huge difference between a spoiler that spans the entire width of the car, vs. one that only spans across the hatch. The vertical fins in one of the above pictures, by the way, is probably a yaw-stability device more than a means of managing drag or downforce, though of course the various effects are mutually interdependent. Another suggestion is a shorter, more bulbous homebuilt alternative to the G-nose. The rationale is that while the G-nose certainly helps with the sharp lip in the stock hood, the G-nose is itself too "sharp". I'll try to work-up some sketches. As for doing parameter studies of yaw angles, pitch angles and roll angles - well, yaw is normally set by rotating the ground-plate in the wind tunnel. Does the A2 tunnel have that option? For roll (which, BTW, is probably of secondary importance) and especially for pitch, how will the car be set precisely at the desired angle, and how will the angle be measured?

Finally stumbled on this thread.... so THIS is the source of the planned wind tunnel test campaign! There is much to discuss here, but let me mention just a few points... 1. Please note the distinction between static pressure, total pressure and dynamic pressure. Keep this in mind when pondering the stalled airplane wing tuft problem. 2. Cars are bluff bodies; bluff bodies behave rather differently than streamlined bodies (airplanes) - an important distinction which challenges the intuition. 3. Turbulent flow can be separated or attached. Turbulence is not necessarily bad. 4. The total pressure in a vortex core is lower than in its periphery. The total pressure outside of the core is constant, but static pressure is exchanged for dynamic. 5. The slope of the Z's hatch was rather unfortunately chosen; massive separation is hard to avoid. A "Pantera" hatch is possibly a solution. 6. For many applications it is admissable to have enormous mismatch in Reynolds number between an experiment and full-scale. This is why scale models - again, depending on application - work quite nicely. 7. For the engineers out there - please use caution in applying textbooks principles to car aerodynamics. Yes, the equations are still valid, but good luck specifying the boundary conditions. 8. Beyond a certain point it, brute trial and error might give a better solution than an attempt at armchair analysis. This is where laymen - paradoxically - can have an advantage over the engineers. As I've been discussing in PMs, there are strong advantages to subscale testing in university wind tunnels, rather than the full-scale testing in North Carolina. However, the North Carolina group is well-organized and has impressively thought things through. I am optimistic of their success.

The issue is that the loads on the bar will tend to bend it, like pulling on a bow string bending the bow's frame. This means that even a very strong bar with such a shape would flex considerably - so much so, that one might question whether such a bar is really effective in helping chassis rigidity.

As one BBZ owner to another - what makes this project so cool is its bolt-in nature. While it's not quite a "kit" the clean install without extensive cutting/welding/re-engineering is very impressive. BBCs have a rumble all their own, even with quiet exhaust. I have a relatively tame mechanical roller cam, and even that thing causes the car to growl without having to raise its voice. The challenge is doing these engines justice; good tuning, good choices of fuel and ignition management. But that would be true whether one had a Chevelle with a BBC or a Datsun.

The best V8 is the one with which you are personally most familiar! If you happen to be most familiar with Ford flatheads, then the Ford flathead is the best V8 for your swap! Why? Because familiarity with what you're doing is the single most important ingredient for success. if you know your way around the Datsun L6 and have no experience with American engines, don't do the swap; go turbo, or some such thing. And if you have the misfortune of not beingfamiliar with ANY engine, well, first get familiar with your stocker. Then worry about high-performance.

Paul [and everyone] - What is currently your personal favorite combination of distributor, capacitive-discharge multi-spark ignition box, and rev limiter? (MSD, Accel, Mallory, Crane, Jacobs, Pertronix, or “house” brands such as Summit, or something else?) This would be for a traditional carbureted V8 (in my case, big block Chevy). Would you recommend a conventional distributor with vacuum and adjustable mechanical advance, or an nonadjustable distributor with “digital” spark control unit? I’m looking for reliability, convenience, adjustability and value - in that order. What in particular do you think of the Summit clone of the MSD distributor: http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=SUM%2D850055&N=700+4294925143+4294839065+4294881256+400304+115&autoview=sku … and the Crane 6000-6400 spark control unit: http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=CRN%2D6000%2D6400&N=700+4294925143+4294839065+4294925127+115&autoview=sku

As I've been posting (preaching?) recently, the V8 swap really has two parts: (1) the swap itself, and (2) the care and feeding of a high performance engine. It's easy for a swap to evolve into a full-on hot rodding endeavor, so (2) can be more complex and more frustrating than (1). A police LT1 into a 280Z sounds like a conservative-enough swap so as to minimize the troubles with (2), yet the donor is sufficiently sporting so that the end result should have satisfying acceleration. In other words, at least on face value, this sounds like a good idea - provided that you buy the entire Caprice (as opposed to just extracting the engine etc.) are are content with the stock transmission. Good donor cars are getting rare. OHV V8 anythings are hard to find - Chevy or Ford. Most cop cars are either FWD Impallas or 4.6L Crown Victorias - neither is a promising swap candidate. So the point is, if the Caprice is in good condition, consider buying it whether or not you pursue the swap; it's good to have around in reserve.

We’re talking hobby-cars here. With exquisitely honed skills you can indeed add the climate control and other creature comforts, the sound deadening and so forth, but for the vast majority of hobbyists this is impossible. For most of us the daily reliability and user-friendliness of our cars is limited more by our own skills than by the concept itself. Nevertheless, upgrading a 35 year old shell to modern all-around standards just does not sound like a wise undertaking, even for professional hot-rod shops charging by the hour. The consensus, I’d venture to say, would be that a V8 Z is a good value for raw performance, but it should be regarded as a lighter, better-handling muscle car - and not as an apples-to-apples competitor to an E90 M3. Are there 1967 Camaros with great highway manners and a user-friendly passenger compartment? Yes, but they are very few, cost $100K, and probably don’t exactly go 10’s at the strip. Instead compare a $15K hot-rodded Z (V8 or turbo L6) to a $15K or even $30K hot rodded first-generation Camaro. Almost certainly the Z will out-accelerate, out-handle and out-brake the Camaro. After doing my swap I realized that much of the frustration with the care and feeding of these cars isn’t with the swap itself, but with a high performance old-school engine in general. So again, it’s like a muscle car, but with a lower price tag, sleeker body and 800 lbs less weight. From personal experience... my car is in a state of deplorable lack of tune, and even so, at least going by peronal perception, the acceleration is incomparably greater than in any car in which I've been driver or passenger. This includes several stock or lightly-modded C5 Corvettes and a lightly modded E36 M3. Of course, performance under rigorously enforced conditions such as road racing on a track would probably be abyssmal, given the shoddy suspension, spongy brakes and 15 year old crusty-bread tires. But that is more the fault of the owner than of the car.

My car is basically done - it just needs maintenance. Fuel spills out of the venturis because the float level is too high, and I don’t know how to set the float level! Or more precisely, I am afraid to experiment because my engine is precious and I’m afraid to mess it up - so I don’t even start it - it sits in my garage, the mocking in its silence. Every weekend after work I do laps in the garage, walking around the car in stupefied wonder, like a tribal shaman mumbling incantations to the statue of the tribal god, afraid to approach lest touching the statue is instant death. So at this point I’m not talking about planning a project or even building a car - I’m talking about basic maintenance. If I paid Grumpy $100,000 to build me a nice drag car, that wouldn’t do me any good, unless I also bought Grumpy the house next to mine and a plane ticket to Dayton, so that he could move here and be my on-call mechanic. And my present neighbor unfortunately isn't Grumpy - at least, not with a capital "G". But what do I do with my Hybrid - take it to Midas? Or do I have AAA tow it 90 miles to Denny’s house (under his tutelage the engine was built)? When I was 14 I replaced the head gasket on my 1976 Toyota Corona, but you know what, I would not even consider doing that sort of job now - I would be too terrified of installing the timing chain off by a tooth, or torquing the head bolts in the wrong order. And the worst part is that the more I learn about engine THEORY the more I’m baffled and stultified in pursuing engine PRACTICE! If you realize just how many g’s a connecting rod “pulls”, just how many psi the oil film in a journal bearing actually supports, well then, the overwhelming wave of awe is nearly a religious epiphany. How can I, a nondescript sap with a solitary Craftsman tool box bought on clearance, ever hope to harness these secrets of nature? Whereas when I was 14, or even 24, it was: “Hey, engines - no big deal, stuff rotates, stuff reciprocates, rotate the dizzy to change timing, spray some starting fluid if it’s coughing - and is that a 12mm bolt - yeah, looks like it - yeah, I think I’ll use vice grips”. Bottom line: initial setbacks + working alone = too psychologically scarred to enjoy this hobby. The problem has NOTHING to do with money! Which is why I am seriously thinking of just buying a Z06 and calling it quits. I felt much the same after the stock market collapse of 2000-2002. But in investment there was much companionship; everyone at the office got hosed in their 401-Ks. Some lost much more than I. Investment professionals got burned together with amateurs. Beyond the hype and false laments, there was real reason to believe that I was not the only fool. The camaraderie gave cause for tenacity. I did not withdraw the vestiges of my portfolio and sew dollar bills into my mattress. Nearly 7 years later my investments have not yet fully recovered, but they are doing vastly better than I dared hope in those dark months of the early winter of 2003. What is missing in the hot rod hobby is a continuity of mentorship from veteran to novice. On HybridZ we interact through the computer screen, and to be sure, this is incomparably useful. But we have some 6000 members across 2.5 million square miles (counting just the U.S.). There are maybe 10 people on this site who I could call and ask for advice, but it’s not the same as a daily reassuring pat on the back that indeed I’m tightening the correct 12 mm bolt, with vice grips or the proper wrench.