Michael

All well and good, but it seems to me that the ultimate arbiter of “what’s the correct valvetrain geometry†– assuming that the various clearances between the various components are within spec, and nothing binds – is how the rocker tip sweeps across the valve stem. Every cam manufacturer’s web site has a drawing akin to “diagram A†in Grumpy’s posting, but I have yet to find any consensus on what is the ideal displacement which is swept by the rocker tip across the valve stem. This is the distance between arrows “1†and “3†in the above diagram. Or to put it another way, if for a given pushrod length the rocker tip goes across the valve stem by, say, 0.070†as the respective valve goes through its lift cycle, is that displacement too much? If so, then the pushrod is too short or too long. If not, then the pushrod length is close enough to optimal, and there’s no point fuddling with pushrod length any further. Use of that plastic “toolâ€, by the way, does not guarantee accurate pushrod length, unless the relation between the base of the rocker studs and the installed-height of the valve springs on your engine happens to be exactly as what the tool’s manufacturer intended. BTW those beehive springs are pretty cool, but unfortunately they’re not (yet) available in spring rates suitable for mechanical roller cams.

The seller's reply was that the car ran mid-low 9's with a 427, and is now "probably" running mid 8's with the 469 - but didn't offer hard numbers. It has Merlin cast-iron rectangular-port heads, a Powerglide and a Dana-60 rear. My personal preferences would be a lighter rear, a stick-shift and oval-port aluminum heads. With the Dana and the cast-iron heads, however, the 2200 lb weight is very impressive!

Awesome! I contacted the seller and asked for time slips.

Short-style valve covers won’t clear the Comp Magnum roller rockers on my BBC, but conventional tall-style valve covers can not be used because their installation or removal would be impeded by the proximity of the “Monte Carlo†bars (diagonals from the front strut towers passing through the firewall and connecting at the dash bar). In other words, those bars pass too closely to the engine, and that makes the choice of valvecovers problematic. Tall valve covers would physically rest in place without interference - they just couldn't be routed over the rockers and under the Monte Carlo bars. Hopefully that wasn’t a too verbose explanation for a pretty simple problem. Anyway, other than custom-machined valve covers, which I am becoming inclined to attempt, the only solution seems to be 2-piece valve covers. These are available for marine engines, for example here: than custom-machined valve covers, which I am becoming inclined to attempt, the only solution seems to be 2-piece valve covers. These are available for marine engines, for example here: http://www.offshoreonly.com/esvon/page-4338.html http://www.hardin-marine.com/detail~ID~818.aspx http://www.zoops.com/newstalgia-products.asp But those cost around $400! Does anyone have leads on “reasonably priced†(< $150) two-piece valve covers for the Mark IV big block Chevy?

Pete, good observation! I was also surprised to find that passage in Hot Rod, considering that they spent the past half dozen issues lashing themselves for their "imports might not be so bad, after all" phase a couple of years ago. The Toyota Carina build-up in the previous month's issue was also an interesting exception. But the same article went on to mention that the post-swap weight of the Solistice would likely be over 3000 lbs - perhaps well over 3000 lbs. Most our HybridZ's are under 3000 lbs, even with all-cast-iron engines and full amenities.

Just an observation on the meaning of “high cost of livingâ€â€¦. High taxes – sure, that’s a high cost of living. But high housing prices? Bubbles aside, if you move to a place where houses are inexpensive, that’s probably because they have not been appreciating in recent years – and they probably won’t be appreciating in the near future. So the net difference between what you get out of the house when you sell it, vs. what you paid for the house when you moved in, would be lower in areas where the housing costs are lower. If you can afford larger monthly payments, the true cost of living is actually LOWER where the housing is more expensive! Example: my house in semi-rural Southwest Ohio now costs a little over $200K. That’s what it cost about 5 years ago, when I bought it. The net appreciation is zero. The same house in a “working class†neighborhood in Los Angeles would have cost around $500K in 2001. And today it would be worth - $1M? Also keep in mind that wealthier areas have a better tax base. If you earn $100K/yr in Ohio, you’re the local aristocrat, and will be taxed accordingly. If you earn $100K in Northern Virginia, you’re just an average Joe – and again, will be taxed accordingly. If there are lots of affluent people in a given area, then the burden of funding the schools, the firehouse, the police department, and so forth, is spread collectively. So, my point is, that if you’re going to settle in a new place for quite some time, it might make more financial sense to seek a more “expensive†area.

Back to the original question.... Early 1990's Camry/Accord are good choices, but would be tough to find in decent shape at under $2000. A Corolla or its GM twin, the Prism, might be a better price/condition compromise. I found a $1200 1990 Honda Accord last year, but it was in really rough condition. And the fuel mileage isn't that great - around 25 mpg in mixed city/highway driving. My 1991 Corolla (bought for $1800 in 2001) would get around 32 mpg. V8 Mustangs, on the other hand, command quote a premium. Finding one below $2000 from any year, in any condition, would be quite a challenge!

So that’s how that BMW mpg gauge works! That explains why it swings wildly between full-throttle blips going uphill, and shifting into neutral. It’s so annoying on my 1992 325 that seriously considering masking it with tape.

First I sawed through the spindle pin to remove the control arm. Then I used a 75-ton press – and bent the fixture that I used to apply loading to the spindle pin, but didn’t budge the spindle pin! Then I drilled through the spindle pin with a 3/8†drill bit from both ends, and tried again with the hydraulic press – no luck. Finally I took the strut casting to a machine shop, which used a mill and boring-bar to remove the remnants of the spindle pin. $200 later the job was done. Next time I do this, I’ll take the whole strut/control arm assembly to a machine shop.

Refreshing messed-up threads with a die can be problematic. I tried this on a particularly bad example (did not grind off the stakes on the retaining nut; unscrewed it with brute force, consequently destroying all threads at the stake location and further outboard), but could not get the die to cut into the same helix as the remaining, good threads. The "solution" was to first grid off the half dozen or so of the most outboard threads, then resume rethreading with the die. I ended up installing the 280ZX-style nuts, torqued to 240 ft-lbs. Car hasn't hit the road yet, so durability has not been verified.

If the preponderance of your concerns is with cost and reliability, then wouldn't it be cheaper to keep your Neon and - if necessary - pay out-of-pocket to get the transmission fixed, than to take a guaranteed loss on a replacement vehicle, only to potentially be disappointed with its performance?

Basically, the totality of my race is 0-20 mph. Mike, let me know if you find any Festivas! Maybe if we swap in a Honda 4-cylinder and install stiffer springs... No joke – I actually like my lawn tractor. It’s got a Briggs and Stratton rated for 20 hp. It tops out at around walking speed, but it really lunges (I can’t bring myself to say “launchesâ€) hard from a start. I am, however, thinking of test-driving a GTO. Then I’ll complain to the salesman, and take note of his reaction.

On matters where I’m reasonably competent, I prefer to work alone. But whenever I have doubts, especially in installing expensive parts where casual stupidity could cost me dearly, I would much rather seek the help of some one more experienced. I’ve found that the more I learn about engine theory, the more I doubt my capacity to execute engine practice. It’s almost as if ignorance really were strength. This is one reason why my engine sat abandoned and forlorn for three years. Then I found Denny, (Denny411 on Hybridz), who lives “nearby†(~90 miles). It’ll take many more weekends of joint work for my engine to finally run – but perhaps now it’s a matter of months, not decades. Pete Paraska and Mike Kelly have also been very helpful over the years. Like many people my age (30’s) I’m finding that time is more precious than it used to be, but a combination of luck and planning has somewhat lightened the financial burden. Often it strikes me that it would be more productive – and cheaper in the long run – to pay shop-rates for a professional to finish the job. But like many have said, can we really trust a “professional†with a unique custom car? And what happens to the achievement value, if you replace your hands and tools with a checkbook and credit card? I would much rather be in a friend’s shop and “helping outâ€, even if all that I’m doing is watching him work, than to completely farm out the work to a stranger. But the issue of working on cars alone vs. working with friends is much deeper than just the car hobby. Unfortunately as people move into the “family formation†stage of life, social interaction between acquaintances and even between friends becomes sporadic and strained. My wife and I made the decision not to have children, and this has done wonders for ensuring leisure time and leisure money, but few people in our demographic cohort have a comparable approach. It’s hard to find social interaction even to play bridge or go shooting, let alone to work on cars. My wife complains the she doesn’t have any friends – and women are supposed to be more social than men!

Mike – don’t interpret my disillusionment as a criticism of your car or your endeavors in car building. Bartman – in short, I have no background. My “racing†experience consists of exactly one 1/4-mile pass at the Pomona drag strip (Los Angeles), around 1998, in a 1987 Toyota Supra turbo. It ran 15.9 @86. But by then, the turbo wouldn’t boost past around 3 psi. So I have zero practical appreciation for what makes a race car fast, in any venue. All that I can draw upon, is what I personally find pleasurable in casual driving, in my hamfisted ways. And that comes down to on-demand throttle response at any rpm. Mike Kelly’s Corvette and Pete Paraska’s 327Z deserve full appreciation for what they were intended to be, but that appreciation is just not consistent with my juvenile fascination with meekly tapping the gas pedal and having the car violently lunge forward. Maybe I never properly learned to drive a manual transmission; 17 years and some 200,000 miles might not mean much, if I started with bad habits and never had occasion to improve them.

In the end, it all goes to heat, so why bother?

In the spring of 2000 I also “saw it comingâ€, and reduced my exposure to the market considerably. So far, so good. But in late 2000, when companies such as Dell, Lucent, Worldcom, AT&T, Cisco, Intel, and so forth, had lost >50% of their value from where they stood when the NASDAQ peaked, I came to think that the market has found the bottom, and bought very heavily into large-cap tech stocks. Of course, the rest was history! My Worldcom and Global Crossings “investments†went to zero, Dell eventually broke even, and the rest are somewhere in between. I did sell most of my tech mutual funds, and took the capital gains tax hit. And speaking of taxes, losses will bring many “happy†years of $3000 annual capital gains write-offs. “Buy, hold and diversify†should not be taken as a mantra. It is indeed far superior to many alternatives, but is by no means foolproof, and by no means necessarily the route to affluence, even over the proverbial long term. If there’s one thing that I learned, it’s that it is better to invest in index funds (several at once – S&P 500, overseas markets, etc.) than in actively-managed mutual funds. But even better than that, is getting the insider deal.

Mike, Of course your car – any car – will produce more torque in the rpm band where volumetric efficiency is highest. But we both agree that the whole point of a large V8 in a “relatively†light car is to avoid peaky response. Breadth over depth, you might say. Your Vette might reach 450 ft-lbs at 4500 rpm (or whatever it happens to be), but surely it’s making an honest 60% of that at 1000 rpm – right? Right? And even that should feel pretty stout. To better explain what I want in a car, here’s an analogy…. A moderately athletic adult human produces around 1/3 – 1/2 peak hp. That ain’t much. Power to wait ratio would be around 1:400! And quarter mile performance would be – well, right around 1 minute. But if you can run the 50-yard dash in, say, 7 seconds (this was reasonably good performance in junior high physical education class), you can probably accelerate from a walking pace to a hard sprint in only a few steps. You don’t need to “plan ahead†to achieve that acceleration. Your brain says, “Hey! Start running!†- and off you go. I would like a comparable “throttle response†in a car. It’s not about the 1/4-mile time, or the skidpad numbers. It’s that instant, ferocious, all-circumstance on-demand animal lunge forward – this is what I crave.

This thread reminds me of my test drive of a 1998 Z28 Camaro (the first year of the LS1). I was all excited about a reasonable (on paper) RWD stick-shift V8. The car was supposed to be a rocket. It wasn't. A couple of months ago Mike Kelly gave me a ride in his modified C5 Corvette. By all evidence his car is at the sweet spot of LSx streetable modification. But I was - underwhelmed. Whenever I come across a promising new car, invariably the euphoria fades after the first test drive, or in some cases even the first test ride. So I made the decision that it's pointless to salivate over OEM "performance" cars. I might as well drive an economy car and go for the reliability and low costs. And save aspirations of performance for the Z. Still, now that my Z is "finally" coming together, I'm worried that the acceleration will turn out to be a disappointment.

Numerous people have posted numerous times regarding optimal pushrod length and the need to check this length for engines with other than completely stock components. However, the criteria for “what is the optimum length†conflict, or in any case are ambiguous. For instance, some sources emphasize minimal total travel of the rocker tip over the valve stem, while others emphasize minimal travel over the portion of cam rotation where the respective valve is half opened to fully opened, while still other sources emphasize that the rocker/valve stem contact area should be as close to the center of the valve stem as possible. In my application the block has been decked, the heads are aftermarket (though valve lengths are evidently stock), the cam base circle is probably not stock (1.18â€), and I’m using Comp Cams roller rockers. However, with the stock pushrods, the rocker tips sweep an interval of about 0.070†width, right in the center of the valve stems. This is just pure luck. I did NOT have access to checking pushrods, but merely tried checking on a whim the valvetrain geometry with the OEM pushrods. So I got lucky. Now here’s the question – should I use proper checking pushrods and go through the exercise of checking valvetrain geometry ANYWAY, trying to drive the swept interval of rocker-tip-to-valve-stem contact even lower – or, should I leave well-enough alone? Is 0.070†a reasonable number, or can one do better? Keep in mind that every adjustment of pushrod length requires making sure that the intake and exhaust pushrods are in turn on their respective base circles of the cam, and then spinning the crank for two revolutions – not easy and very time consuming. The engine won’t see >6000 rpm, and probably not > 5500. So, there’s the issue of some adjustments being more trouble than they’re worth – unless one is pathologically curious….

Shouldn’t this be in the “fuel delivery†forum? Now that I’ve annoyed the original poster, here’s a related question… With electric fuel pumps typically one uses a pressure regulator and a return line, for example as in Grumpy’s diagrams in this thread, or in http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=108825 . And most people end up with an electric pump, either because they’re adapting a stock fuel tank with an internal electric pump, or are using JTR-type engine mounts which interfere with the stock Chevy mechanical fuel pump location. In my application there is no interference between the engine mounts and the stock fuel pump. (454 BBC mounted to the frame rails). I plan on using a Carter “street†mechanical fuel pump, rated at something like 110 gph at 6 psi, going into a 4160-style 750 cfm dual-feed, single power valve, vacuum-secondary Holley. This should be plenty, because, well, let’s do the calculations… a 0.030-over 454 at 6000 rpm at 90% volumetric efficiency (optimistic) uses about 43,000 ft^3 of air per hour, which at standard sea level is about 100 slugs of air, or around 3200 lbm of air (per hour, not per minute). Assuming 12.5:1 mixture and fuel density of 6.3 lbm/gal (should be close), this gives just over 40 gph fuel flow requirement, if fuel were being burned at a steady rate. In an actual fuel flow path, the various pressure drops might be such that to maintain continuity, the requisite pressure rise across the pump at equilibrium is greater than 6 psi, in which case the actual max fuel flow rate will be less than 110 gph (there’s a nearly inverse relationship between volumetric flow rate and pressure rise). But I’m still fairly confident that the 110 gph at 6 psi pump should be sufficient. I’m using a 3/8†fuel feed line. Now here’s my question: (1) with this combo, do I need a fuel pressure regulator at all? (2) I have a fuel cell with a built-in sump, but don’t plan on using a return line. Do I need a return line, after all? This thread: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=106679 suggests that a return line is always a good idea, for heat-soak reasons.

Yup, you’re never too young or too old to start investing – which means that you’re never too young or too old to start losing money in the stock market! I’ve been working full-time and saving aggressively for almost 13 years – and I’m quite a few years younger than Mike. But in 2000-2003 I lost my a$$ in the market, and am only now crawling my way back to half-a$$. But there’s something to be said for a government job with a government pension. Unfortunately, unlike investments, defined benefit pensions are back-loaded. You don’t really get rewarded for starting early, but you really get penalized for finishing early. The way that defined-benefit pensions work (with the exception of the uniformed military), you’re better off messing around and being stupid in your 20’s and 30’s, then settling down for a stable job in your 40’s-60’s. Fortunately my wife still thinks that a Super-Value Meal is 5-star dining, and luxury living in Midwestern winters means turning up the thermostat to 60 deg F. With such moderate expenses, early retirement becomes possible, even with the pension penalty. But the real reason to retire is that work sucks, whether you work in the private sector or public sector, small business or large business, or even self-employed. Sometimes I think about getting a faculty position, but that probably sucks too. Then again, sitting at home sucks….

Widen it a bit, and drop in a V8! Why was I the first one to post that suggestion?

To add to the chorus… Depending on your circumstances, a slightly used Vette will actually cheaper than a LS1 240Z in the proverbial long run – if, that is, you want an all-around car that’s quiet, has A/C, stereo, etc. Of course, if you already have the tools, the time, the work area and the experience, the swap wins hands-down. If you want a maximum-effort bruiser built purely for acceleration, then the swap becomes considerably more attractive. But then, should you really be starting with an OEM engine?

We can distinguish two separate cultural trends here. Unfortunately it’s difficult to comment on either, without running afoul of our anti-politics dictates. The first is what some might regard as the recalcitrance of immigrants or foreigners in not bothering to make sincere effort to learn English; and similarly, the perceived excessive accommodation of this recalcitrance by the mainstream society. The second is shorter lag between youth generating a new slang, and the acceptance of that slang in the mainstream culture. That is, every generation had its rebels and its slang, but it seems that in the present generation the slang doesn’t pass through a stage of derisive dismissal, on its way to eventual acceptance. The common theme is that newcomers haven’t taken their lumps; they insist on society conforming to their demands, instead of vice versa. As a first-generation immigrant myself – whose native language is not English – I find myself torn between competing viewpoints. On the one hand, I take pride in having achieved a modicum of mastery in English, and find rather disappointing the dearth of comparable effort on the part of some of my peers. On the other hand, there is something distasteful in the rabid criticism of the new and the foreign, in a society whose very existence is predicated on affinity for change and rapid absorption of outside influences. Perhaps the compromise, as previous posters have noticed, is to censure (1) the obviously careless posters, and (2) those who contemptuously flaunt a membership in the latest clique with the latest colloquialism, who expect everyone else to realign their standards of discourse. Now would some one please explain to me, regarding the newfangled concatenated/phonetic typing (“u r†instead of “you areâ€, “becuz†instead of “becauseâ€, and so forth) – to what extent are these and related trends due to: (1) text messaging, instant messaging, etc. (2) video games (3) the latest urban slang, for example on the West Coast (4) pop/rap music

Is this really true? I thought that the assembly lines would be rolling at least through the completion of the 2006 model year. BTW I heard that GM has suspended plans for all of its sub-luxury RWD platforms. This means that the 2008/2009 Camaro is dead, as is an entry-level RWD sedan. Chevy and Pontiac will continue to offer V8 FWD sedans, but Corvette and Cadillac will be the only RWD. The reason, evidently, is the usual one: GM decided to concentrate on trucks and SUVs, which monopolize the RWD production lines. Regarding the aesthetics of the GTO – personally what I find among the most distasteful about modern cars is the garish exterior in anything with a claim towards performance. In my view, the GTO actually has too many scoops and swoops – rather than too few. One reason that I drive an older BMW is its demure styling. However, the GTO is far less obtrusive than the competitors, such as the Mustang, Subaru WRX, etc. But the main problem with the GTO isn’t its styling; it’s the weight. 3800 lbs? It could really benefit from losing 300-400 lbs. So maybe I’ll start talking myself into buying a new GTO, before they become defunct. One thing that I’ve learned from my adventures in tinkering with a V8 Z – some inspired, but most asinine – is that $30K for a turnkey 13.5-second car isn’t such a bad deal, especially if it has air conditioning and ungrudgingly starts on cold mornings. Not to change the subject of this thread too much – but it’s the indirect costs of doing a swap that matter most; tools, time, education, broken and incorrect parts. I “only†have about $15K in my Z, but vastly more than that in ancillary costs. In many regards I would have been money-ahead by buying a new, turnkey car. Evidently next month GM will be having another of their sales-boosting but profit-compromising sales.