Michael

For the record, I'm paying about $3200 of property tax a year on a house assessed at $200K. And this is in a township, where we don't even have a firehouse! A colleague at work is paying $9300/year on a house assessed at about $400K. You can verify these numbers by researching the Greene County (Ohio) municipal web site; do a search on 3360 Old Winchester Trail (unfortunately these statistics are all a matter of public record - makes me wonder about identity theft, but that's for a different thread). Meanwhile, when I moved here in 2000, my one-bedroom apartment cost me $480/month.

Please consider that the purported tax benefits of home ownership are often illusory! First, only the mortgage interest is tax deductible; the principal is not. So unless you make a small down payment or have a very long-term loan, pretty soon after buying you’ll find your tax benefits evaporating. Second, the standard deduction for married filing jointly is $10,000. You’ll need a house in Northern Virginia to get an annual mortgage interest to exceed that! Third, house ownership means property taxes, and these taxes can easily be comparable to the cost of renting an apartment. To put it in perspective – I have no mortgage, yet the taxes and maintenance expenses of my house more than exceed the rent for a 1-bedroom apartment. The home ownership fever is a ruse concocted to keep people bound to “property”, triggering various behaviors deemed favorable, not to mention additional expenses such as furniture, remodeling and lawn care. I’d go on and on, but the thread would become too political. Bottom line: buy because you need a place to work on cars, and not because you’re concerned about missing out on putative tax breaks.

On a recent business trip to Denver, I wasn't particulary inpressed either. It felt like a typical mid-size midwestern city; small downtown surrounded by older sections not quite blighted but rapidly approaching that condition; a token entertainment/social district (a few overpriced bars), and miles and miles of cookiecutter houses. This certainly did not feel like one of the leading metropolises in the nation. It lacked the pulse, the energy, the intensity of urban feel. And it confirmed my suspicions that a truly significant city should be on a coast - or at least on a navigable river, and ideally on both.

After fixing the float problem (Holley carb), I drove the car for about 22 miles today, including on the highway. Damage from the recent overheating (momentarily 235 degrees, as measured in the intake manifold) is not obviously apparent, but I've yet to look closely. With the water pump operating temperatures stay below 200 deg on the highway. Issues/questions.... 1. Upon hard acceleration the oil pressure drops from 60 to around 20 psi. This is a mechanical gauge plumbed into the stock tap, just above the oil filter. I'm using a Hamburger 8-qt oil pan with the baffles/scrapers/doors. My conjecture is that the loss of oil pressure is fictitious - the gauge is not registering correctly at high acceleration. Is this reasonable - or is the pickup actually sucking wind? Space between the pickup and pan floor was (if I recall correctly) about 0.3". 2. Upon hard braking, the carburetor seems starved for fuel; the engine sputters. It's a vacuum-secondary 750 CFM Holley (4160-type) with a Carter mechanical fuel pump and a 3/8" line. 3. How do I know - having no comparable experience of high performance cars - whether the vacuum secondaries are really opening fully at heavy load and full throttle? 4. My chase driver reports that when I let off the gas, there is a small puff of brown smoke. When I accelerate sharply, there is a small puff of blue smoke. But the smoking is much more benign than it was before the local hot-rod shop did a "tune-up". 5. Vacuum on the distributor is disconnected - it's not operating correctly. I'll probably get a MSD 8361 + 6AL, or MSD 8394 + 6A. 6. Shifting the Doug Nash 5-speed is OK when running through the gears in sequence, but shifting into 5th after coasting in neutral invites a horrendous grinding noise - unless I pre-rev the engine. 7. Speedometer is way off, despite the basically stock tire diameter and 3.54 R200 (original rear was 3.54 R180); at 60 mph it reads around 70 mph. I momentarily attained a displayed 115 mph on the speedometer - steering felt solid (even though front toe is somewhat off) and overall the car felt better composed at that speed than my E36 BMW - or maybe that's my imagination. 8. Fuel mileage is horrible. Lacking a gauge I can't quantify, but it's probably 10 mpg or less; no overdrive and no vacuum advance. 9. Nailing the throttle causes the rear to jerk to the right, then spin the tires, then "normal" acceleration. By "nailing" the throttle I mean starting at around 2000 rpm and just mashing the gas pedal. 10. How do I ascertain whether the clutch is slipping (that is, if it's only slipping moderately)? There is no apparent burned-clutch smell, but perhaps that is being masked by the exhaust and burnt rubber.

How does one get an E30 BMW down to 1900 lbs? If I recall the specs correctly, a stock straight-6 E30 weighs around 2700 lbs. In any case, this seems to be a classic debate: the more modern car (the BMW) has advantages in chassis stiffness and suspension geometry. The older car (the Z) is easier to strip and is more amenable to radical mods. I'd say that in a closely-regulated class, race the BMW. In a "run what you brung" class, race the Z.

I know nothing about LSx engines, but (1) it is very, very strange that the exhaust port flow is essentially constant beyond 0.300" lift - could there be some sort of obstruction? And (2) 368 cfm intake at 0.600" lift is on par with top-of-the-line aftermarket big block heads with 2.25" or larger valves; getting that out of the box - in a small block head - is quite phenomenal!

Manuals for adjusting the float level of center-hung floats in 3310-style carburetors mention two methods: the first is in the car, where the sight plug is removed and the float level adjusted to where the fuel level is low enough so that fuel isn’t flowing out!; and the second involves removing the float bowl, turning it upside down and adjusting the float level until the gap between the float and the bottom (now on top) wall of the float bowl is at some level. I much prefer method #2. Trouble is, I can not find the spec for what that gap should be. I have not been able to find it in scanned Holley manuals on-line. Holley’s own manual for this model (http://www.holley.com/data/Products/Technical/199R9934-3.pdf) does not even mention method #2.

…Ahh, BBC steering feel… Of all the teething problems plaguing my Z, one of the bright spots has been the light steering feel. Between the aluminum heads and the firewall setback the steering is really nimble.

After reading the manual (the action of last resort!) for this and other MSD distributors I realized that all of them - except for the HEI-style- require an external coil. The "digital" distributor, as you pointed out, is digital in name only - adjustments are made by turning potentiometers by discrete increments. Still, I was advised about the reliability advantage of the 8394 vs. a mechanical advance mechanism with weights and springs. Did you end up chosing a conventional model - such as the 8361 + 6AL + coil (such as the 8207)?

Is this regarding the MSD "digital E-curve pro-billet" distributor, that goes for nearly $400? I was thinking about getting one of those - but wondering if it's a reasonable value - especially considering that this is evidently NOT a stand-alone unit, but requires a MSD capacitative-discharge box.

In what category would we classify the JTR-type steering crossmember mod for bumpsteer reduction/camber increase? This used to be [relatively] popular some years ago, but seems to be getting rarer.

Browsing through the collected wisdom on selection of Holley carburetors, I came across this thread. The article in SuperChevy is still available, here: http://www.superchevy.com/tech/0304SC_small_block_chevy_motor/index.html . However, the web site does NOT list the dyno data itself - only lots of pictures and a few general observations. Does anyone have the torque curves themselves?

On the first urban-traffic shakedown run after some tuning, the coolant temperature suddenly started climbing from 190 to 200, 210, 220, 230 - before I managed the nerve to shut off the engine the temperature hit 235, bounced down to 230, then back to 235 - and this lasted for maybe 2-3 minutes. Perhaps less, but it felt like 2-3 minutes. When shut-off, the temperature needle was stubbornly parked at 235. I had to restart the engine to get out of traffic - another 30 seconds of operation at 235. Then final shutoff. It turns out that the V-belt (connects crank pulley, water pump and alternator) had come off, and I was driving for about 1-2 miles without a water pump. No steam or visible damage. After returning from the local parts store with a new belt, the temperature cooled down to about 150. After reinstallation of the belt I commenced the rest of the drive. Temperature steady at 190, no smoking, no bucking, no surging - at least, none that could be discerned over the exhaust noise. This is a nearly brand new engine - 10 miles on the odometer. So, question: given the description above, how likely is serious damage? Or is the only real damage to my frayed nerves???

It’s quite true that little of one’s academic studies applies directly in “real world” engineering, except for certain computer skills such as CAD and Matlab. But the point of formal education in engineering is to improve one’s capacity to learn new information, and to see (sorry for the hackneyed term) the “big picture”. In this sense on-the-job training such as internship will not replace formal schooling. That said, a Ph.D. is probably not worth the trouble. In purely economic terms, the increase in annual salary will not compensate for the 5 years that you’re out of the labor force; teaching assistants rarely make more than $20K/year. Job security and employability are no better than for a Masters - and if you believe the cartoons and anecdotes, employability can actually be worse. The most natural option for post-Ph.D. employment - professorship - comes with considerable baggage and aggravation. One goes for the Ph.D. because of some idealistic love for the subject matter - much the same justification as for joining the Peace Corps or a seminary. If you have that love, fine - but then you probably don’t need to ask…. But just to spite Mikelly , I'll argue in favor of the Ph.D. vs. "practical experience". The experienced employee is great at efficiently completing specialized tasks, at troubleshooting worrisome problems and getting things to work. But he's generally at a loss in trying to conceptualize; he struggles to articulate cogently and eloquently what he means to say; he fails to appreciate the aesthetics of abstract knowledge. As a "program manager" I work with both college professors and small-business contractors. The contrast is striking! With the professors I can freely exchange ideas - the conversation moves smoothly without pause. They "get it". With the industry guys I have to pause, constantly tying the discussion back to "applications". They know exactly what software package to use, and how to use it - but they are perfectly content to treat it as a black box.

If you don't mind FWD, consider a V6 Accord. Otherwise the G35

Why not instead get a Masters in Mechanical Engineering? These days a practicing engineering needs a Masters - a B.S.E. is really just to basic. And "on the job training" is no substitute for rigorous lecture and exams! Like Pop said, an MBA is great for climbing the corporate ladder, or for rising in government administration. As a mid-career federal government employee I’m seriously thinking about getting an MBA. But for a small business owner the MBA borders on being pointless. And instead of Wyotech, how about the local community college? Many have auto tech programs that lead up to ASE certification. You could reverse-transfer your engineering credits to the community college, and get your ASE certifications in about one calendar year of study.

The reason to do a BBC swap is neither for bragging rights nor for horsepower potential - though neither, to some extent, can be entirely discounted . The reason is the SAME reason that one would have any particular engine preference; and that is, that you are already familiar with the engine! If you know Buick nailheads, do the Buick swap. If you know Lexus V8’s, do the Lexus swap. The main headache of hotrod auto mechanics is NOT the swap itself, but the care and feeding of a high performance engine! Making mounts, routing the exhaust, fitting the transmission shifter and hooking up the driveshaft are hobby-craft challenges that some patience and creativity will cure. But right now I’ve got a $7000 engine with beautiful top-end parts, which keeps fouling plugs because of some irascible ailment in the ignition system. This has nothing to do with swapping engines, and everything to do with basic familiarity with the specific engine in question. If you grew up working on Chevelles with your dad, and can tune the old 396 with a screwdriver, a pair of pliers and a shop rag, by all means do the big block swap. The LS1 might be lighter and more refined, but who cares - if it is outside of the scope of your familiarity, it will descend into a rancid pit of frustrations. But if you grew up tuning EFI and know your way around handheld code readers, but haven’t seen a carburetor other than on lawn mowers and model airplanes, why bother with the Mark IV BBC? Don’t worry about the custom engine mounts for the LS1. They can’t be hard to build. But why that silly $7000 engine is fouling plugs after 10 minutes at idle - now there’s a good half dozen mechanics (no exaggeration!) stumped, as of this writing. And this problem would have been identical in a 60’s Impala with a numbers-matching BBC. So, bottom line: do the BBC swap because you know the BBC. But if you know another engine better, swap that one. And you're right - there are no shortcuts. Except for maybe buying a brand-new Z06.

Without quantitative analysis it would be difficult to reliably infer from the shape of the upper frame rails the structural importance of the upper radiator support. Most likely the upper radiator support also plays a significant role in crash protection, in rigid mounting of relatively heavy and delicate components (the radiator), and in overall vibration reduction. If would venture to think that triangulating the front strut towers would allow the removal of the upper radiator support - especially if you replace the lower radiator support with a stronger piece. Crash protection will be compromised, but this is probably not your main concern anyway.

Mark IV BBC and Gen I SBC have the identical 3-bolt mounting pattern, and identical bellhousing flanges. The difficulty, as mentioned above, is the BBC’s larger width (taller deck, larger heads), larger length (larger bore spacing) and larger height. All 1964-1991 Chevy big blocks are externally the same (well, some have 0.400” taller decks); a 366 looks much like a 540 - huge differences in bore and stroke are masked by a common exterior. “Project_BBZ” recently finished a bolt-in of a BBC using JTR-type mounts. Somehow he managed to installed block-hugger headers without having to modify the frame rails or relocating the steering shaft - both very impressive achievements. On my car there are so many front-end chassis mods that sometimes I wonder if it would have been easier to keep the VIN plate and slap it onto a custom chassis built from scratch. The BBC fits nicely, but that does not preclude the possibility that with enough finesse, a “bolt-in” swap would have also fit well. But even as a "bolt-in", the BBC is not recommended for a first swap. The Cadillac 500 is attractive because of its comparatively low weight. It is almost certainly not taller than the Chevy big block, which in turn is NOT 5” taller than the Chevy small block. But watch for oil pan depth and tall intake manifolds. On the other hand, if you build a SBC with more than about 406 cubic inches, you're looking at an aftermarket block. Word is that those blocks are some 50 lbs heavier than OEM. So compared to an aluminum-headed BBC the weight difference becomes quite modest.

Recently I had occasion to take my Z to the local dyno/hot-rod shop. One of the first questions asked by EVERY technician is “what kind of rear end do you have in it?” Evidently rear-end failure is a common problem with muscle-car-based performance cars. Maybe it is the suspension setup, maybe it is something endemic in solid axles, or maybe it’s the weight of most of these cars. My point is that many people seem to be really concerned with whether the rear end will survive - whereas the preponderance of experience on this site is that the R200 differential is far, far down the chain of likely failure items. Many other things will likely fail first.

What was the duration on the 0.700”-lift cam? It’s remarkable that just a cam change - with what on first blush appears to be a minor change in specs - will cause low-end torque to almost fall in half! Now here is a follow-up question: fully-assembled cylinder head combos spec’d for mechanical roller cams tend to have very stiff springs! So for mild mechanical roller cams, often the combo becomes over-sprung. My Brodix Race-Rite heads have springs with 580 lbs advertised at 0.650” lift. But the cam manufacturer recommends 400-450 lbs at 0.650”. Correcting this mismatch was not practical in the short-term, so I let it be. How risky is this? I have the Isky Red Zone lifters and 3/8” chromoly pushrods.

Well, I went to the dyno shop on Friday, with high expecations. After the basic questions regarding my engine, the shop owner pointed out that since there are so few miles on the engine (exactly 2.0), it is unready for dynamometer testing; it would need, by his recommendation, a minimum of 100 miles of street break-in time. Otherwise the engine would continue to "seal itself" progressively during the dyno session, thus being a moving target in trying to nail down the best state of tune. His recommendation was that so long as engine temperature and oil pressure are OK, I should drive it aggressively without great concern for failure or damage. This is both reassuring and disappointing; I was hoping to use the dyno session less as a tuning aid than as an expert's blessing that my car is OK. But one should realize, I suppose, that risk and adventurism are part of the price of high performance....

I’m heading to the local dyno shop this Friday. They have a Superflow and plan on using a wide-band O2 sensor in the tailpipe. They can also monitor manifold vacuum. There is no provision for measuring exhaust gas temperatures. Tuning parameters will be jetting, carb spacers, switching to a different carb (750 or 850 mech-secondary double-pumper vs. 750 vacuum-secondary), initial timing, total timing and rpm for total timing, valve lash, and possible cam intake centerline (I have a fancy adjustable timing set). This is a for a big block Chevy engine with dual-plane intake, mild mechanical roller cam and mildly-ported aluminum heads. Besides what you’ve posted above, any words of wisdom?

Have we completely ruled out that it's a 1st-generation 260? Sure, the bumpers are second-generation, but what about the indentation in the front valence panel, which seems a natural fit to receive the old-style bumpers? Check underneath the car; do the frame rails terminate shortly behind the firewall, or do they extend quite a ways back? If the former, then it should be a 1st-generation 260, like a 240. And are the VIN numbers the same on the firewall (near the brake cylinder booster), the dash and the riveted plate on the driver's-side door jamb? In any case, sounds like a good find!

Hybrid swaps just aren’t cheap, period. Anything requiring custom engineering will be expensive, even if you find attractive deals on individual components. As mentioned before, what causes costs to escalate isn’t the parts installed in your car, but the wrong parts, the broken parts, the worn parts, the parts that don’t work together and the parts that never should have been installed in the first place - in other words, it’s the mistakes that are costly. I’m becoming convinced that the “right” way to build a hybrid is to first own a nearly stock muscle car AND an improved-touring-type Z (or Mazda, or BMW, or whatever). Work on those for years - I mean, years and years. Learn the quirks of each. And only then attempt a hybrid.