Michael

And one of my first-ever posts happens to conclude the thread that Superdan posted above. Looking back, it’s curious how little has changed. For whatever reason, I often have the concluding post in a thread – same as ever. Am I scaring off follow-on posters? Were my words that dry and dreary? And then there’s the enthusiasm for theoretical solutions – what sounds clever in principle, but intractable in practice; this too has been a constant for me. So here I am, 6+ years later – still working on the SAME engine!

This is a fairly standard rendition (as such things go) of an all-aftermarket big block Chevy. For the claimed hp level and the displacement, it seems a little under-carbed and over-cammed, though of course that depends largely on what portion of the claimed hp is supported by the nitrous, vs. what portion is all-motor. At this level, typically the block would be aluminum, and often they get a dry sump, or at least one of those fancy billet oil pumps. Would be an interesting swap in a Z - with suitable chassis and suspension mods, of course.

Mike, congratulations on your progress! And here's to further success - more contracts, more billable hours, more rewarding quarterly statements in that 401-K plan (or whatever you self-employed guys call those things)! It's great that we have the enterprising folks willing to take such risks. That said, I'm looking at a lifetime of employment in the federal government. Especially in modern - and future! - times, one can't underestimate the importance of a guaranteed pension!

This thing needs a V8!

If you don't mind the weight, and want to stay with Ford, why not do a 460 big block? It's relatively inexpensive, aftermarket support is OK, and the width is probably less than the OHC 5.4.

This seems a little high. By “shellâ€, do we mean the removal of absolutely everything that is not welded together to form the unibody? The only “factual†basis that I have for my opinion is the following: removing the engine, transmission, and most underhood componentry from my ’78 280Z, but leaving intact the suspension, glass, interior (what’s left of it), and so forth – so, the car is a “roller†– one can, with a modicum of effort, lift up one of the front corners of the car by grabbing the corresponding fender lip. It’s possible to lift the corresponding tire about 2†off the ground.

Here’s a similar, though somewhat more benign situation…. A couple of years ago, on one of our semi-regular drives from Dayton, Ohio to Washington, D.C., my wife and I made a stop at a rest area in western Maryland. It’s the first rest area upon crossing the West Virginia/Maryland border, eastbound on I-68 into Maryland. Returning to our car and driving down the ramp back onto the highway, I noticed a car with its high-beams on, driving directly towards us – thus, the wrong way! Then the lights flashed – it was a cop. So naturally I stopped. Then, in the proverbial seemingly out of nowhere, another cop pulled up behind us, boxing us in. I tried to sit calmly, engine off, hands on the steering wheel. From the rear cruiser comes a voice on the intercom: “Step outside of the car, slowly, with your hands where I can see themâ€. I’m not making this up! So of course I complied. The rear cop walks up to me, pats me down, then starts shining a flashlight into the car. He notices my wife - she’s short, has dark hair, and was evidently not visible from behind the car (this was late at night) – and orders her to get out too. The cop from the cruiser parked in front of us then gets out, walking with a somewhat asymmetric posture. Before I even formed the question of why his right arm is behind him, he says, “I have a shotgun, so please keep stillâ€. At this point the situation seemed so surreal that it felt completely comical; scary, indeed – but so weird as to be comical. I mustered the courage to ask, “would you mind explaining to me what’s going on?†The first cop, who has been orbiting our car with his flashlight, said that they received a tip that a bearded man wearing a black jacket was prowling around the rest area brandishing a rifle. Feeling self-righteous, I calmly informed the cops that they’re welcome to search our car. The shotgun-carrying cop says: “Sir, we don’t need your permission, we’re going to search your car regardlessâ€. And so they did. And then they searched my wife’s purse (how does one conceal a rifle inside a purse?). And of course they found nothing, because at the time we owned no firearms. Then, never losing their peremptory haughtiness, they remarked, “you’re free to goâ€. I don’t recall them even having checked my driver’s license! Questions for the lawyers… 1. On what grounds did the cops have a right to treat us in this manner? Or to search our car? 2. Suppose that I did have a rifle – let’s say unloaded, and in the trunk – if that were the case, would I have gotten arrested? Or otherwise harassed? 3. If, for the sake of argument, the cops acted properly in pursuing a suspect (I have a beard and I was wearing a black jacket), what right did they have to search my wife’s purse?

Denny, good to see you finally posting again!!!! I might as well mention it publicly - for the past 2 years or so, I've been making the 90-mile drive to Wapakoneta every few months, to get Denny's help with my Z. It was only by his tutelage that I've been able to reassemble my car's suspension, get the short block built - and, maybe soon - get the engine running. And it was on the basis of his advice that I took my engine components to the machine shop, in the first place!

Good question! There are several possible reasons.... * Unlike in the muscle car or traditional hot-rod worlds, most of the folks on this forum are relatively young. Youth, like it or not, brings instability. The project car takes a back seat to college; lack of suitable garage space means that construction has to stop; parents’ or spouse’s objections shortcircuit the whole endeavor, and so forth. * Many HybridZ’ers are engineers, if not by professional occupation then at least by formal or informal training. Engineers like to tinker; once they get a project accomplished, they get bored and prefer to move onto to the next challenge. This, I think, is the reason why some of the most breathtaking swaps end up getting sold shortly after their completion. * Many folks have reached the conclusion that whereas Z’s are good all-around hobby cars, they don’t really excel at anything – at least not in stock form. If you want a good drag car, you eventually go elsewhere. If you want a good road-race car, you go elsewhere. If you want a comfortable GT cruiser – well, you know. So for many, Z’s were starter cars. After doing the Z swap, they went to something else. From time to time I question myself, “why bother with the Z� The answer comes down to the following: how many other relatively commonly available cars have the combination of aesthetic appeal, low stock curb weight, large engine compartment, relative mechanical simplicity and RWD. And of those, how many are old enough to be smog-exempt, yet modern enough to have front disk brakes, IRS, and so forth? This makes the Z a very natural swap candidate. Some day I’d like to build my own truly custom car – starting with absolutely nothing: design my own chassis, suspension, body lines, and so forth. Until then, there’s the Z. And if it takes me 30 years to finish this thing, so be it.

For those of us who don't participate in competitive motorsports, there's something to be said for the "feel" of hard acceleration and speed, vs. the actual numbers. Personally I find that a cushy (read, modern) car gives less visceral sensation of going fast, than a hollowed-out tin can with rattly exhaust and aluminum-foil doors that won't quite close properly. To each his own, of course - and I can't deny that the Gen III RX-7 is an impressive car, made yet more impressive with the LS-1 swap - but the older I get, the more affinity I feel with bare-bones, raw-knuckle cars ill suited to anything but the occasional storming down a deserted country road.

Autocad's principal advantage is that it is the most natural analog of old-school manual drafting. So if you learned drafting on a drafting board, Autocad is a good choice. Also, Autocad is very convenient for 2D drafting. Just be sure that 2D is really what you need, and not merely what you'd like to start out with. Solidworks has become the industry standard in most areas of mechanical engineering. As an Autocad to Solidworks convert, I've also had considerable trouble with the learning curve. The concept of parametric sketch is still counterintuitive to me, but automatic drawing of fasteners, for example, is very convenient. Both Autocad and Solidworks have tremendous support in user literature: "for dummies" manuals, and so forth. Also, the Solidworks user interface can be configured to sort-of emulate Autocad, complete with a command prompt. Niche industries such as aerospace have been using Catia or Unigraphics, because of their "lofting" features - that is, they perform complicated operations on compound curves semi-automatically. This is the one area in which Solidworks is still inferior, but it's growing fast. Pro-Engineer is the original parametric drafting program, but it's fast becoming overtaken by Solidworks. Bottom line - either Autocad or Solidworks. Final choice might come down to price/availability.

I agree that Roots blowers are not without problems, but the general concept of the car in this thread - tiny chassis, huge engine - is stylistically impressive nonetheless. The builder definitely gets my respect. That said, some relatively "minor" (given the level of effort already invested) modifications would tone down the visual cues, improve drivability and ultimately performance. For 500 hp in a 454, one would think that forced induction is unnecessary. With good heads, a roller cam and "proper component matching" (as the mantra goes), 500 hp with single n/a 4-barrel on a 4000-rpm torque peak and 6000 rpm redline doesn't strike me as at all exotic; at least, that's essentially the goal for my own car.

... for my 460 (454 + 0.030"). It's a "low lash" mechanical roller from Cam Motion. Cam card says: (all duration numbers at 0.050", angles are in crank degrees, unless otherwise specified) Lobe sep 112.2 (cam deg) overlap 21.6 ground +4 advanced Intake: open 12.5 BTDC centerline 108.2 ATDC closed 48 ABDC duration 240.5 lift 0.64178 lobe area 30.19 inches * degrees Exhaust: open 62.3 BBDC centerline 116.2 BTDC closed 9.1 ATDC duration 251.4 lift 0.64553 lobe area 32.29 inches * degrees The open/closed/overlap numbers look a little funny only because these are quoted at 0.050", instead of the more common at 0.006" or 0.020". The large disparity between intake and exhaust duration is because of the heads: Brodix Race-Rite oval port heads, which flow great on the intake side, but e/h ration ain't so hot. And the exhaust tract in general is pretty restrictive (small-tube headers, 2 1/4 pipes). So, the cam goes in next month. Then clearance checks, then pushrod measurement, then.... well, let's not get too carried away here. But I did promise myself to get this car running in 2006!

" If it doesn't fit, force it. If it breaks, it had to be replaced, anyway".

Project BBZ, I would recommend that you mock-up the exhaust tract from the heads back toward the transmission tunnel area, as early as convenient in the car's construction process, to check starter interference, clearance around the bellhousing, etc. Things may turn out to fit perfectly - or they may not. It might be necessary to cut sheet metal, buy a different starter, relocate the steering shaft, and so forth. It might even be necessary to move the engine back or forth slightly.

Project BBZ, any updates on your progress? You cardomain page concludes right at the point where you're about to commence the actual swap.... I'd be especially interested in seeing your solution to the frame rail/exhaust header (Hooker 1.75" block headers, right?) interference problem on the passenger side. Did the air cleaner clear the stock hood?

Sounds like a good swap candidate! Seriously - with a good body, interior and suspension, but a drivetrain of questionable reliability, high complexity and a lot of weight, it makes sense to consider cars of this category as swap candidates. Chances are good that a 350-based SBC (or LS1, if you prefer) would fit - and would actually weigh less than the original engine.

On a business trip to Germany my rental car was an Opel Vectra GTS. FWD 4-door family car, 2.3L 4-banger. And Opel is just GM. But... that thing was remarkably smooth, tracked fine and steady, reaching 210 kmh (130 mph) on the highway from Braunschweig to Frankfurt. It did feel a little light-footed at the curves, where it was necessary to slow down to around 180 kmh. This is a rather nondescript, lukewarm-sporty family sedan - from GM! On a trip to England I rented a Vauxhall hatchback, with a 1.6L 4-cylinder. If the Opel was striving for upper middle class, the Vauxhall was definitely rental-fleet caliber. And yet, it too had peppy acceleration, responsive handling, logical and useful driver controls, good pedal feel, etc. My point is that there's something about European-market cars that emphasizes taughtness and connectedness with the driver, something that's very difficult to find in American-market cars, even amongst cars of European origin. I don't think that it comes down merely to engine internals.

In my case 4 lobes were wiped - one was wiped right down to the base circle! Idle quality was quite good, with the only exception being an occasional popping noise every few minutes. The popping noise increased in frequency and volume with increasing rpm. There was no discernable loss in performance except at the bitter end, when one pushrod actually broke in half and another buckled and was on its way to breakage. However, this was my first V8 and I had no benchmark for comparison of how much power to expect. Another thing to check, if this is a hydraulic cam, is the valve lash. If you adjusted the lash by the usual method (tighen the rocker nut until the respective pushrod no longer spins by hand, then tighten another 3/4 turn) on every valve, and then notice that for some reason one or more valves seem to have picked up some lash, chances are high that the respective lobe is toast. Of course, it's also possible that somehow the rocker adjustment nut isn't holding tightly on the rocker stud - that would be good news, as it were.

I'm not a turbo guy, but I've done some work here and there on propellers, so Pop n' Wood's analogy is worthy of some further comment... The issue with propeller pitch is with the effective angle of attack [at each spanwise station] of the propeller blade. The angle of attack comes from the relation between the blade geometry (pitch) and the vector sum of blade rotational velocity and the oncoming flow speed - or the speed of the boat or airplane - or the speed of the flow in the nozzle leading to the turbine disk. For a given rpm, low oncoming speed and high blade pitch means that the blade angle of attack (again, angle of attack varies along the blade radial location, but assume that it's a constant for now) is high, so the blade is at or near stall - and maybe even beyond stall. Efficiency will be low. At too high an oncoming speed for a given blade pitch and rpm, the so-called advance ratio is above its critical limit, meaning that the blade angle of attack is effectively below the zero-lift angle - meaning that the propeller isn't making any positive net thrust. Or in the case of the turbine, the turbine isn't extracting net positive work from the oncoming flow. However, these are all issues of steady-state efficiency; what the turbine does once it spools up to a steady-state rpm for a given throttle setting. The original issue, I think, was less about turbine efficiency than about turbo lag, which is mostly concerned with how fast a turbine spools up. And this, I think, has as much to do with turbine wheel moment of inertia as it does with blade design and optimal blade-nozzle matching. Keep in mind that moment of inertia goes as the 5th power of a linear dimension (mass * radius ^2, or density [of the turbine material - steel, ceramic, whatever] * linear dimension ^5); double the size of the turbine wheel, and moment of inertia goes up by a factor of 32!

I'd have to agree with the folks who have mentioned the wiped cam lobes - especially if this is a hydraulic flat-tappet cam from Comp. I had the exact same symptoms on my big-block, after installing a mild hydraulic flat-tappet cam from a Comp "K-kit". Unfortunately this won't be revealed by a cranking compression test - you'll have to pull the cam.

Might there be a third option - for example Hays or Ram - which give the advantages of an aluminum flywheel, but at a lower price and with the 11" clutch?

Yes, with enough fabbing this could indeed be made to work, but one has to wonder whether the work necessary to fit this to Z body lines is worthwhile - or whether it's easier to just start with a pile of tubes and make your own "kit". When I last looked into this, there was nothing available for the Z; the closest fit was the Vega/Pinto kit.

The guy who built the frame for my 280Z had a strip-only 280Z with a custom tube chassis and a 4-link. Road handling was awful, but the car ran low 10’s. This was in the 1980’s – so, the technology is dated by 20 years. It’s true that there isn’t enough room in a Z for leaf springs or ladder bars, but a 4-link will fit – with enough surgery to the sheet metal. There’s a member on this site (his handle is Japtin, or something like that) with a semi-kit tube chassis. Jegs or Chris Alston might sell a “Vega/Pinto†kit that with considerable customization would fit a Z. Another option is to retain the IRS but beef up the halfshafts, stub axles, etc. – and go with a R230. Weight and balance issues with a big block can be offset by moving the firewall aft, for more engine setback. This is the approach that I took. Of course, there’s no guarantee of launch consistency. If you’re going to go with a big block Chevy, don’t settle for a 396; the weight penalty of a big block deserves at least a 454, if not larger. If I were to do my swap all over again, I’d begin with a Dart Big-M block (4.600 bore) with at least 4.25†stroke.

My 1978 280Z with a semi-tube frame (much of it 1.75†0.134â€-thick mild-steel DOM tubes) and an all-cast-iron big block Chevy engine weighed in at 2725 lbs. This was a completely stripped car, with a lot of the unibody cut out and most stock bolt-ons removed, but with essentially stock suspension and a pretty heavy drivetrain. Weight as measured on four scales, one under each tire. With aluminum heads, fiberglass hood, gutted doors and a few other mods, I’m hoping that the new weight will hit 2600 or better. I’ve driven Pete’s car, and it really was surprising that the weight came out as high as it did. However, when you close a door in his car, you’re rewarded with a throaty, reassuring “clickâ€, like in a modern luxury car. When you close a door in my car, it sounds like kicking a garbage can. So, the moral of the story is, an all-around solidly-built car WILL have a weight penalty, whereas there’s considerable weight savings in a tin-can stripper. It all depends on your objective….