Michael

Not to change the subject (much), but how's the recoil on that 30-378 Weatherby?

I don't race and I don't know much about suspensions, but I did observe approximately 3/8" of side-to-side motion at the frontmost end of the front tires, as my 280Z was lifted on a hoist (that is, from 100% sprung mass resting on the tires, to 0%). That's approximately 1.8 degrees of toe angle change, per wheel - an amount that sounds excessively large - large enough to warrant corrective action. So, I did the JTR crossmember mod. I have not driven the car since, and can't comment on the relative benefits.

Maybe this is the engine gods' way of saying that now you should go big-block?

What are the odds that the Hemi would ever be available with a manual transmission?

I’m not sure how folks misunderstood my posting, but somehow it happened… (1) of course the lower the Cd, the better (2) Cd of 0.40 was OK in 1970, but today it’s outright horrible. (3) Drag coefficient is only part of the story; cross-sectional area is the other part. The Z is small, so even with a high Cd its overall drag is, well, not as bad as one might think. (4) One source of drag, apart from “bad streamliningâ€, is downforce (or its opposite) (5) Multiple sources confirm that the 240Z’s drag coefficient was around 0.45, give or take.

I would be very, very skeptical of those drag numbers for the Viper. Let me repeat that: very skeptical. It’s true that cars designed for downforce will also generate “induced dragâ€, and that (together with exposed tires) is why F1 cars have apparently high drag coefficients. But few modern passenger cars have Cd above 0.35. And even relatively ordinary sedans are down in the 0.28 range. The Z has an advantage in its small size, and in particular in small cross-sectional area. Recall that drag is drag coefficient times area times dynamic pressure. A small car with high Cd might still have less drag force, at a given speed, than a larger car with a lower Cd. I've seen the 240Z's Cd quoted at around 0.45.

To add to the discussion... Some people believe that guys who haven’t actually successfully built a well-running engine either don’t understand basic engine theory, or can’t make up their minds on what parts to use. That’s like saying that if you’re not street-smart, you can’t be book-smart either. Well, in fact it’s entire possible to have a robust understanding of the internal combustion engine, and nevertheless to still end up with a poorly-idling, fuel-puking, clanking heap that gets 8 mpg and makes 90 hp at the crank. How? Well, start with a 350 V8 core, do everything 100% right on buying correctly-matched parts, get all the tolerances right, assemble everything right, then screw up ignition timing by 20 degrees, and bingo, you’ve got 8 mpg and 90 hp. Or, forget to add oil to that brand new crate engine, and now you’ve got 0 hp. Meanwhile, your neighbor, who thinks turbulent separation is a kind of divorce and natural frequency is a rock band, has a smoothly running engine making 200 hp, because he remembered to add oil and his dad taught him how to set the timing by rotating the distributor while listening to the engine.

Link to "my" page hosted on Pete's site: http://alteredz.com/MichaelOlsBBZ.htm

My '78 280Z, gutted, with sheet metal removed here and there, no bumpers, no dash, and not much of anything except a roll cage, weighed in at 2725 with a 454 with cast-iron heads. This was on race-scales under each tire. Since then I added a 240Z rear bumper, a passenger seat, headlights and some gauges, but removed more sheet metal and gutted the doors. With aluminum heads (big weight savings on BBC's) I'm hoping for 2650 lbs

I’m one of 3 or 4 members on this site who at one time or another had a big block Chevy engine in their Z. As far as I’m aware, my car is the only one to retain the Datsun independent rear suspension; everyone else back-halved their car to fit a solid rear axle and either a 4-link or ladder bars. The guy who did the metalwork on my car mentioned that the pre-fab “tube frames†(Chris Altson, S&W, Jegs, Magnum Force, etc.) DO NOT fit the Z. They’re designed for Pintos and Vegas. My roll cage was built from (mostly) 0.134†DOM mild-steel custom-bent tubing, styled loosely after suggestions in Herb Adams’ book, “Chassis Engineeringâ€. In my case the firewall was relocated aft about 6.25†for improved weight distribution etc. The 6.25†comes from the length of the run of sheet metal forming the unibody in the section between the door hinge mounts and the stock firewall location. Another 2†of setback is possible before the firewall upper lip hits the windshield lower edge. I’m short, so the reduction in cabin room doesn’t bother me. The engine bay is now quite large, with enough room for the engine such that the crank pulley is just behind the steering rack. I’ve seen two other cars where the firewall was relocated aft. One is an E-mod (sp?) road racing car with a Ford 5.0, if I recall correctly. I can’t remember what engine the other one has, but it’s not a BBC. And there are 2 (or more?) cars on this site with C4 Corvette suspension grafted in, with a ladder-frame tying the front and rear ends. But those have SBC’s. The BBC swap does NOT require a full tube frame, but it does require some chassis mods, and would require severe chassis mods to maintain good weight distribution IF you don’t backhalve the car. If you do backhalve the car, firewall relocation is probably not necessary, considering modern tire and suspension technology. Also keep in mind that a “full†cage (with X-bars in the doors and a dash bar), tied into the front and rear strut towers, might look like a jungle-gym of bars but is technically still not necessarily a true tube frame. For instance, in a true tube frame the differential would bolt to hard-points on the frame. Mine is still mounted stock, though the points where the mustache bar clamps are tied into the roll cage. Old (but perhaps still relevant) pictures of my car are hosted on Pete Paraska’s site. Also check the various threads where we debate the question, “is the big block swap really worth itâ€. Bottom line: do it if you’re already an expert on big blocks and love the engine. Don’t do it otherwise.

From personal experience, even the spindle-pin puller can fail. I tried removing the spindle pin from one of my strut assemblies using a 75-ton hydraulic press. It also failed! Lest this result be attributed to my own incompetence, I should mention that I had a machinist and another technician help me. Next I tried drilling the spindle pin out. The drill bit wandered, and even with a 1/2"-diamter hole drilled down the spindle pin, it still would come out. Finally I took the strut to a local machinist. He used a boring-bar on a mill to cut out what remained of the spindle pin. Conventional drilling wouldn’t work, since the drill bit would just follow the off-center hole that I already drilled. The boring-bar worked just fine, except that it cost me $170!

This one really has been debated to death, but the beat goes on... Keep in mind that when doing the V8 swap, the 240 will tend to gain weight when beefing up various components (such as swapping the R180 for the R200). Also, weight removed from the 280 as part of the swap will be larger than weight removed from the 240. So, the weight difference between the two will converge (slightly) as part of the V8 hybrid conversion. While I can’t cite hard data on unibody weight, I’d estimate that a stripped 280Z unibody outweighs a stripped 240Z unibody by around 100 lbs. That can be thought of as the minimum weight different between the two, short of resorting to metal shears and sawz-all.

How about the Centerforce “dual-friction†setup, 11†diameter? I used that between my 454 (with 168-tooth Hayes aluminum flywheel) and my Doug Nash 5-speed, before the engine grenaded. With a McLeod hydraulic throwout bearing and Tilton 3/4" master cylinder (not sure about that dimension, but it sounds right) the pedal throw and pedal force felt reasonable. I plan on recycling all of the above when my engine comes back together again.

Returning to the original theme in this thread... 1. As engine displacement increases, hp/L tends to decrease – regardless of what it says on the name badge. It’s a basic consequence of things like flame-front travel, filling and emptying the combustion chamber, piston speed for a given rpm, and so forth. For example, engines in the sub-cubic-inch displacement category, for radio-controlled model airplanes, easily make 2 hp/in^3 (4-strokes) and can reach 6 ph/in^3 (2-strokes) n/a. At the opposite extreme, consider the large marine engines (battleships, tankers) – they probably make less than 0.1 hp/in^3. So, it stands to reason that a 7L V8 would have a lower hp/displacement ratio than a 2.0L I4. 2. European (and probably Japanese) driving is more suited to high-hp driving, deemphasizing low-end torque, whereas American driving is the opposite. My recent driving experience in Germany was quite eye-opening. In-town, streets are narrow, crowded, and winding. Traffic patterns are difficult to navigate, and favor the convenience of pedestrians and public transportation, not motorists. There isn’t much opportunity to gun the engine from a standing-start, so low-end torque is of limited use. But on the highways I was cruising along at a steady 200 km/h, with the engine at something like 5000 rpm. In the U.S., the streets – urban, suburban, rural – were built for cars, not people or busses. Low-end torque is important to accelerate, to pass one’s fellow motorists, to get from stoplight to stoplight. But our highways theoretically top out at 65 mph. Well, the point is that small-displacement engines can do quite OK for high-end hp, at the expense of low-end torque. But cubic inches are hard to beat for n/a low-end torque. The choice of engine architecture – high-winding small-displacement vs. lower-rpm large-displacement – has much to do with the respective driving style in the market where the car was produced. What surprises me is that European and Asian manufacturers have only recently started designing cars specifically for the U.S. market. True, Toyotas, Nissans etc. destined for U.S. import were always a bit different from their domestic-market brethren, but the differences were relatively minor. It’s only in the past 10 years or so that Camry’s have had about the same engine displacements as Tauruses. The typical 80’s and early-90’s imported family sedan had a 2-2.5L 4-cylinder, vs. its American counterpart’s 3-3.8L V6. This disparity still sticks in our memory, despite is relative disappearance in recent years.

I have a 454 BBC in my 280Z. As mentioned already , it will fit, but will require some cutting and welding. With the engine dropped low enough such that the bottom of the bellhousing hangs just slightly below the frame rails, a 3â€-high drop-base air cleaner on a Holley 4160-type carb on an Edelbrock Performer-RPM intake will stick about 1†above the hood. A low-rise intake might actually clear the stock hood – barely. It’s not necessarily true that running a big block is the death knell for road-racing and handling in general. With any V8 swap, you’re automatically in a SCCA class where being competitive is basically impossible. From that point of view, a big block is no worse than a small block. Good handling – in terms of good front/rear weight distribution and low polar moment of inertia – will probably require relocating the firewall. And the engine will have to be mounted to the frame rails, not to the steering crossmember (as JTR does it for small blocks). Aluminum heads also help. So why go big block? Well, the best reason is if you’re already experienced with big-block muscle cars, and want to carry that experience over to Z’s. Many veteran engine builders prefer big blocks, for their added durability in stock or nearly stock form, for the opportunity for much more efficiency cylinder heads, for the tolerance for more aggressive cams. But it’s definitely lots more work in a Z swap. Examples of successful BBC swaps on this site include Brad Barkley and Ron Jones. Ron’s car ran something like 8.60 in the quarter mile. Both cars were dedicated dragsters, with solid rear end swaps. Mine still retains the original rear end, 3.54 R200. But my car only ran about 20 miles, on a stock 454, before I wiped the cam. For the past 4 1/2 years I have been rebuilding the engine....

If you’re new to Z-cars, and especially if you’re new to high performance cars, sports cars or “hot rodsâ€, it’s almost impossible to “get it right the first timeâ€, even if you plan rigorously, budget carefully and search tenaciously. So here’s an alternative: buy a crappy car, something under $1000, and preferably well under $1000. Make sure that it drives, but ignore the body condition. Drive this car for several months, get to know its weak points, spend some time under the hood doing general yeomen-type mechanics. But don’t invest in it! And don’t think about swapping an engine in it. Six months later, sell it for a few hundred bucks, and walk away. Now you have practical experience, and are far better prepared to invest in a better car.

Finding a “donor†engine and doing a complete rebuild is the most educational route, but probably not the cheapest. And definitely not the shortest. I bought a used 454, originally out of a 1978 Chevy Suburban; price: $850 (yes, big blocks are more expensive). A friend and I swapped it into my Z, with the following engine mods: new aluminum flywheel, Comp Cams hydraulic flat-tappet cam and cam kit, Performer rpm intake, Hooker block-hugger headers, Holley vacuum-secondary 750 cfm carb. The aftermarket parts I bought at Summit, some with a 10% discount that I had at the time. After break-in of the cam, I drove the car for about 20 minutes – before a sharp knocking noise became apparent. I thought that it was a spun rod bearing; but in actuality it was a wiped cam. Fast-forward two years; I disassembled the engine down to the bare block. Spent many, many hours porting the heads. Fast-forward another year: finally got the gumption to take the block, heads, crank and rods to the machine shop. $1800 later, I had a nicely machined block, reworked rods with ARP rod bolts and shiny new hypereutectic pistons, ground crank, balanced rotating assembly, – and ruined heads! The heads developed cracks when the machine shop was pressing in new valve seats. Fast forward one more year: I’m still waiting for AFR to finally bring to market their long-promised 265cc oval-port BBC heads. Are you listening, AFR???? Now let’s see.... I did successfully recycle the block, crank, rods, and harmonic damper. I also recycled bolt-on's like water pump, starter, alternator and fuel pump. Everything else is brand new. And now let’s add up what still remains to be bought: Heads (assembled) - $2000 (at least!) Mechanical roller cam and roller lifters - $750 New head bolts - $100 Misc. gaskets (like copper head gaskets) - $100 So this is roughly a $7000 engine, pan to carb, with my assembly labor (and excellent help from a few folks on this site!). It should make around 500-550 ft-lbs torque, and maybe 480 hp. OK, 500 hp with an collaborative dyno. Roughly the same numbers as the ZZ502 crate engine from GMPP, which, oddly enough, is also around $7000 new. Of course, that engine has inferior valvetrain and heads, it’s set up for automatic transmission, and makes the same power numbers from about 40 cubic inches of displacement. The good part is that I know exactly what’s inside that engine. No nasty surprises from unscrupulous shops or builders. But I paid for my MISTAKES, and I’m still paying for them, in money and in TIME. Do you have half a decade to build an engine???

This has been mentioned before, but the theme got lost some pages ago…. Arguably it’s the right thing to do, to hit your enemy and to hit him hard. Not only are you teaching him a lesson, and exacting revenge; you’re also preventing future terrorism by speaking “the only language that terrorists understandâ€. OK. But shouldn’t you be damn well sure that you’ve got the right guy? In the past three years we’ve had some high-profile arrests of known Al Quaida members – we cab say that those guys belong in Gitmo, that they belong in the interrogation chamber, with its various accouterments. That does NOT mean that everyone that we’ve got in custody is a terrorist. One can support harsh treatment for terrorists AND still support due process for identifying who’s guilty and who isn’t. Respect for innocent-until-proven-guilty is NOT identical to being soft on terrorism. The difference between “us and them†is not that they’re not afraid to use force, and we are. No. The difference is that we use force with discretion, and they use force indiscriminately. Right?

Interesting article. I was going to post the following in the “torture†thread, but this one is more appropriate. As a naturalized American citizen who has lived here for 24 years but whose native culture is very different, my perception is that America has largely been spared the horrors of war and destruction in modern history. So when 9/11 happened, it was viewed as an apocalyptic event, a completely unprecedented tragedy which changed all the rules, and which was viewed as a requisite wake-up call for America to gird for a new reality. While Europeans were also horrified by this tragedy, they did not react in such an apocalyptic sense. Let me try to examine why. It’s inconceivable for Americans to lose millions of civilians to carpet bombing, starvation, genocide, and all the other evils of “total warâ€. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Gettysburg – how do these compare to the Battle of Britain, to the battle of Stalingrad, to the seize of Leningrad, to the destruction of Warsaw? Not to belittle the deaths in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but one must recognize the relative magnitude of the suffering and destruction. Europe has been hit so hard by warfare, that Europeans have come to collectively believe that essentially ANYTHING is preferable to war. Americans, on the other hand, tend to believe that war is just another part of the saying, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilanceâ€. So whereas most Americans probably believe that America is at war, and that it rightly should be at war – literally a war, and not just a metaphorical war such as the “war on drugs†or “war on povertyâ€, Europeans find the war-talk to be ill-placed hyperbole.

Getting back to the original discussion, I believe that the key idea is that America should hold itself to a higher standard than the standard that our enemies apply to themselves. An “eye for an eye†response to 9/11 would have been to drop a hydrogen bomb on Kabul, then threaten the same for Baghdad, Damascus, Teheran…. And act on that threat, if the intended recipients don’t cooperate. Democracies NECESSARILY find themselves fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. Phrased another way, such is the price of freedom. As for what we should do to “solve the problem of Islamic jihadist terrorismâ€, here’s step #1: get out of Saudi Arabia. Notice I didn’t say get our of Iraq, or stop supporting Israel; just get out of Saudi Arabia.

Does anyone have any more information on the 3.15-ratio R200, preferably LSD? This was mentioned in 3 or 4 threads over the years, mostly as a high-end (>$1000) race-only item.

Doug Nash (now Richmond gear) 5-speed. First gear is deep (3.27:1), fifth gear is 1:1, so there is no overdrive. With a numerically small rear end ratio, this might be a good choice. I’m running this transmission behind a 454 (big block Chevy). Bellhousing pattern is the same, I believe, as a Muncie 4-speed; tailshaft splines are the same as TH400. This is considered to be a good choice for drag racing. It’s reputed to be a strong as anything this side of a Lenco. But, shifting is notchy and the lack of overdrive presents problems in street driving. They’re pricey new (about $2000 with the shifter), but used examples can be relatively cheap; mine was $750. Another mixed blessing is the external shift linkage. Good, in the sense that you can move the shifter location around to custom-fit for a particular installation; bad, in the sense that transmission tunnel widening is required. In a 280Z you need to cut and reweld the tunnel (hammering is not enough).

From what I heard, the 496 big block currently installed in heavy-duty Chevy trucks is quite a bit different from the Gen VI BBC, installed since 1996, which in turn is quite different from the “traditional†BBC, the so-called Mark IV, 1965-1991. In the hot-rodding world, by “496†one usually means a 454 or 427 Mark IV block, bored 0.060†over, with a +0.25†stroker crank (so, total stroke is 4.25â€). There never was a stock 496 Mark IV BBC; the largest was 454. The Gen VI BBC differs from the Mark IV principally in one-piece vs. two-piece rear crank seal. The oil gallery and water jacket design is also different. The Gen VI BBC installed in boats is typically a 502, “siamese†(like the 400 small block) with 4.47†bore stock. In recent years it has started to garner aftermarket support, though the Mark IV aftermarket support is still vastly greater. I have never heard of aftermarket parts for the new 496 BBC. From what I recall, it’s back to a smaller bore but longer stroke. The hot rodding community evidently considers it a “truck engineâ€. The Mark IV BBC “truck engine†had a taller deck height (10.20†inches vs. 9.80†inches for the “passenger†big blocks), and is relatively rare. Some hot rodders prefer it for the opportunity to run a stroker crank with a long rod, thus preserving or improving rod to stroke ratio. But the taller deck hampers selection of intake manifold, distributor, pushrods, etc. The new 496 BBC is referred to as a “truck engine†in a pejorative sense – and not to imply that it’s somehow tougher and therefore better suited to high performance use.

My car's theme also keeps changing. Originally it was, "garage queen with lots of potential, soon to get back on the road". Now the theme is, "garage queen with ambiguous potential, trying to get on the road sometime before the 22nd century".

Planning is great, and planning for the unforeseen is even better, but there are situations where no amount of planning can adequately prepare one to address the unforeseen! Taking Mikelly’s example, suppose that one finds that a “custom engine†built by a “custom builder†to actually be a pile of mismatched, cheap hodgepodge with a wiped cam, oil-puking rings and knocking bearings? Unforeseen indeed! But it’s SUPPOSED to be built by a pro, and it cost a pretty penny! Well, if one has the financial resources, and the contacts with machine shops, etc., then this “unforeseen†can be successfully solved. But lacking the spare $8K and the Rolodex full of business cards, the unforeseen becomes a showstopper. The real cost of these projects isn’t buying the parts or the tools, or even paying a pro to do the job right the first time. The real cost is paying for one’s mistakes, and sometimes for the mistakes of others. The time that is takes to complete the project isn’t the time necessary to do the job right, at a relaxed and measured pace; then most projects would get done in a year or two! No, the reason that these projects take multiple decades is that minor, entirely innocent mistakes or defects become intractable nightmares. Like that small spot of rust that turns out to be a structurally unsound frame rail. Or the momentary loss of oil pressure in that fresh, high-dollar engine, which wipes a crank bearing and back to the machine shop you go! In hindsight, I did learn one thing: considering my investment in money, let alone time, it would have been cheaper to buy a new Z06, and be done with it.