seattlejester

I think the suggestion was if you need it in a racing environment, you might as well weld the differential. The way that is designed it either won't work (weak springs), or it will work but will supply excess load on the bearings, which aren't designed to be under that kind of force constantly. Which means it will wear prematurely, that can lead to seizure and would be bad in a normal environment, but in a race environment where you are going fast with loud noises might go un-noticed and be catastrophic.

It blows my mind after watching it, "I just spent 30 minutes watching 2 guys run some hoses," I don't regret anything.

Weekends would work better for me given the return trip would add an hour not to mention the drive up after work I imagine would be pretty bad at least till Everett. I don't have anything particularly planned this Saturday . I can head up to arlington in the morning and grab the power steering unit and then head further north to you and help you tear things down. As long as it doesn't have anything like the engine or something of that nature we should be able to tackle removal and deconstruction. Don't let me intrude on your plans though.

Yea, no comparison. Project binky content is like jaw droppingly insane, but months of waiting. This is more a instant gratification. I guess like being wait listed on a Michelin star restaurant for a few months vs going out to eat Mcdonalds. I'm not above consuming McD's while I wait

It went from maybe a sub frame swap which the rear M5 subframe is surprisingly well packaged, to a tube chassis, to a ladder frame, to a body on frame, and now it is going to ladder frame with hanging body unless he plans on bridging everything. Honestly who knows, someone with a lot of time could still make something work, and that is one commodity he seems to have along with quite the disposable income in some aspects.

Just so you know, none of the 280zx's came with LSD's at least in the states. You are probably looking for a Z31 turbo differential from 87-89? Probably excluding the 88 Shiro VLSD.

Oh I had no doubts about the electronics involved, more of the physical aspect as in two fuel pumps, two fuel rails, two fuel lines, etc etc. At that a same sided intercooler seems perhaps an easier task.

Yea, I have all sorts of things, sawzall would probably be the best for bigger cuts. Die grinders care the least for what you are cutting. I imagine if we got the main section from where the steering rack passes through the firewall to pedal box out that would be useful. Happy to come up and help take bits off and such, if you want to save body panels and such we can definitely cut them off, pulling glass if you want to save it as long as it isn't glued in isn't too bad with two people as well.

I gotta get my eyes checked, primer grey, but I suppose that thing turned into the red thing!

Oh I was thinking if you are getting rid of the shell would you mind if I took a portion of the firewall if it doesn't sell? I want to make a jig to make the electric power steering setup and fit it up so it is pretty much a bolt in affair. Happy to share of course

While relatively fresh on my mind. Please feel free to correct! Got a chance to do a few measurements on the CD009 and a 280z. Also compiled some measurements based off of my R154 in my 240z. Early 240z 70, 71, 72 will physically fit an R154 unaltered, CD009 will fit unaltered per Exposed's picture. R154 CD009 via Exposed Thanks to body measurements we know the mounts on the body sit about 86mm off the floor pans. The top of the trans tunnel sits about 285mm off the floor Trans mount holes are 310mm apart center to center Flange for the mount is roughly 40x40mm, although the outside edge is tapered by trans tunnel as can be seen on exposed's mounts 23 inches of room from fire wall to trans mount or 584mm, the closest recorded measurement I have on the diagram is 622.5mm to the TC bucket from the trans mounts. Later 240z, 260z, and 280z will need the trans brace removed to fit. They have about 8 inches of space near where the trans cross member bolts through. They can have sufficient room similar to the 240z with the trans brace removed, maybe more with in some regards with the catalytic converter hump. Measurement CD009 R154 Total length 40 28 keep in mind the CD009 has a tripod shifter while the R154 ends at a dust shield for the output Face to output 29 27 Face to trans mount center 27 25 Rear box dimension 10w X 12h 9.51w x ?h widest portion of the rear of tranny. Trans mount bolt pattern 2 bolts 4.25 apart 4 bolts at a V like ~3 inch apart? Shifter sits ~5 backwards? ~5 forward? Early chassis trans mount bolt spacing 310mm Early chassis trans mount span, 270mm (310mm bolt spacing, 40mm pads, 310-20x2=270) Technically almost 11 inches, but the mounts are kind of rounded so probably closer to 10.5 or 10 inches. Late chassis trans mount bolt spacing ~250mm 10 inches Late chassis trans mount span, ~200mm 8 inches This was eyeballed measurements on an uncut CD009. Make sure to factor in the adapter plate width which is an additional 0.625 The following are just my thoughts for swapping from my R154 to a CD009 using collins adapters adapter. My transmission sits almost flush if not a bit recessed in the trans tunnel, easily verified with the firewall to chassis trans mount measurement the offset nature of my mount and the measurement of the face to the trans mount. 25 (face to trans mount of R154) - 23 (firewall to chassis trans mount) - 2 (trans mount offset). Exposed's trans mount is not offset and his transmission face sits 4 inches proud of the firewall + 0.625 inch for the adapter plate I imagine. With the serial 9 shifter relocate which puts the shifter at about 32 inches or so it is a suggested perfect fit. The factory cd009 shifter can with stand being shortened about 4 inches via eye balling and the shifter sits about 1.5 inches in front of the rear Total length is about 34 inches from the face to the shifter hole via that method, using an offset shifter I can get back to 32 inch territory. The question is can I pull the trans further into the trans tunnel. While the engine obviously can move forward 4.625 inches from where it sits since that is how Exposed is running his setup, that would mean new engine mounts, which in all honesty I am not opposed against, but with that comes intercooler pipe shortening exhaust lengthening, coolant line shortening, hopefully the fuel lines reach as well as the wiring. Looking at 2j-z on youtube, although his car is a 280z, he welded his cross member back pretty much under the shifter hole. His engine also sits about the same as mine does with the shock tower between cylinder 1 and 2. In the spirit of stream of consciousness, that would be a problem since as it is right now I can only loosen my bell housing bolts with an angled wrench. With an adapter pushing that back even further short of access holes on the inside of the car I would have to drop the trans mount and tilt it down to get access to the top bolts. Assuming it would fit the early chassis without butchering up the factory mount brackets. Not going to fly, so plan will be to move the engine forward about 2 inches as of now. That means an off set cross member with holes spanning 310mm across and about 50 mm or so back from the trans mount holes. That will also pull the shifter out of the ash tray area and not require me to fabricate or buy the CBF forward mount shifter, instead moving the bucket forward 4 inches or so and then using a 2 inch offset to push the shifter forward. In theory given the 310mm bolt hole spacing found in the FSM, and the additional 40mm mount width, that should leave a space of roughly 270mm or slightly less. that should mean the big bulge in the back of the trans should be able to be off set rearward. Only physical measurements would argue otherwise.

Ooh neat, If you want anything translated let me know, the kanji takes a while since I'm not native, but I can struggle through the hiragana and katakana and have the automotive perspective to put things in context. Gotta get your Z out here

Yay an update! Ugh, I have the same thoughts granted I blew up a 7m which is kind of notorious for that. Granted I had the most wondrous time this weekend in the wet and the car didn't miss a beat. I think my 3.7 is a bit too short at least with an R154. 6k still seems a bit short, check toe? Toe is more of a tire killer in the short term.

^Or the green thing outside?

Hmm, I've heard the unspoken side of E85 is the 1k recommended oil change interval, perhaps a byproduct of people running too much fuel to eek more out of their setup. The duel fuel thing sounds pretty neat, I imagine secondary injectors or something of that nature and a switch over to an auxiliary tank? Then again that seems pretty complicated in its own way.

Ooh, excellent point. Assuming the same amount of fuel in a closed system assuming perfect atomization regardless of method, then the heat absorbed via vaporization should be equivalent. Carbs though as mentioned have poor atomization compared to fuel injection, and as a byproduct probably and in actuality do require more fuel to have the equivalent fuel to keep the AFR happy. That combined with larger size droplets means less surface area if my recollection is correct means slower vaporization. Disclaimer of course, this is pure bench racing for me, I've only dealt with this stuff in theory. Some meth injection systems employ almost a hose, while others employ a spray nozzle, so there must be some disagreement there. Similarly they do offer almost direct port methanol injection now where it used to be a single pre throttle body injection used to be the norm. The guide I looked up said with direct port methanol injection you can actually remove fuel, I imagine more of the methanol actually makes it to the cylinder and acts as fuel. Where as injecting it further upstream it would serve more as a method to cool the charge and not as a fuel additive? Not really sure on that, but yes meth injection would be another method of cooling the charge and enriching the fuel, granted if he is already planning on E85, just adding a bit more fuel to be used as a sacrificial heat sink would be simpler. I just thought of this though, adding too much fuel can result in washing the cylinders, given how E85 behaves and how it usually ends up in the crank case, maybe the above would not be as recommended.

If the fuel vapor has a longer path to travel and is injected more in a stream like in a carb vs a spray as in an injector it can absorb more heat overall, I think through surface dynamics. Say you spray a mL of water vs drip a mL of water on the table. I think the overall heat absorbed may be the same for it to evaporate in a closed system, but the time the drip/puddle takes to dry would be longer the surface area of the droplets would expose it much more to air.. I imagine that has something to do with fuel efficiency as well as gollum states, the injected fuel is in a for lack of a better term in a more combustible state, where as the stream being dispersed through the Venturi might not quite be a pure mist by the time it gets to the intake port, that is where we have all the crazy edge of science things with grooved intake valves, and stuff that supposedly benefits carb'd motors because it allows one final spot for the spray to kind of tumble and aerosolize. Granted that kind of stuff is in the same camp as singh grooves so kind of pseudosciency I imagine and a digression. I'm still reading through the response, but my goodness, level headed, thoughtful, kind of not expected over the internet, part of why I love this forum. This is what I would really consider a discussion. I think we have slightly different views, but as a trial I don't think this will be problematic. With good monitoring or safeties in the ECU you would know before the motor started acting up. This E85 no intercooler thing is a bit of a mystery, I imagine intercoolers are just kind of the turbo system, so removing it seems off to many me included. Then there is the compounded problem of measurements. Short of a dyno, our proposed post injector temp sensor it is hard to sort through examples found online. Some people state, "oh the boost went up when I removed the intercooler," well hotter air is less dense and could raise the system temp, using IGL we see that pressure would go up as well. Other people install an intercooler and note, "oh I lost peak boost psi with the intercooler," while you can get a pressure drop from the large volume, the intercooler also condenses the air by bringing the temps down so the air is cooler, more dense, and pushes less in the system bringing overall PSI down, but in this case making more power. I appreciate the discussion, I'm very curious to see the findings when this is made.

No worries, I should have looked a bit more into it. Maybe the bulb tech has gotten better and don't use as much resistance or something of that nature. I have it in my cart for my next order for jegs, https://www.jegs.com/p/JEGS-Performance-Products/JEGS-LED-Turn-Signal-Flashers/2872412/10002/-1 As of now running two normal flashers doesn't bother me in the least, having no signals at night was a much bigger concern.

Very interested to see what you find. I will say their spring rates are kind of high at least for a 240z.

Nice plate, and congrats! Super happy for for you!

The two important bits are cropped haha. You want to see what you have to do for the tops and if it has a clean surface at the bottom with the correct parabolic cutouts. They aren't cheap, granted swift springs aren't cheap either. If my BC coilovers ever get loose, FEAL is where I plan on sending them for rebuilds.

I've heard good things about their brand, but didn't know they were offering a Z option. I would ask for a picture before anything though. I imagine that is a stock picture, but it is about as wrong as can be. Would be good to know how much they expect from you.

Oh I'm happy to discuss. Granted this seems to have shifted more towards feasibility rather efficiency. That is a pretty neat chart, but it doesn't include E85 and I'm not sure you can extrapolate for solution mixtures. For solids racemic mixtures really compromise characteristics, granted with a solution and the pure burn characteristics that may not apply. Also you really can't just divide numbers like that. While PSI is a pressure rating and you can have half the pressure, we are talking about a race engine with most likely un-comparable flow numbers. From what I could find a stock MN47 head flows 175cfm where as an SR20 flows over 200, the VE apparently flowing up to 280cfm modified people are quoting over 300cfm. I imagine an engine employing a billet block would have an even crazier head. Why does that matter? Well in a simple air pump situation if the head can only flow a certain amount the air that does not make it into the chamber will stay behind and build up which we read as PSI. So you could have a massive turbo feeding a really poorly flowing head and make 100hp at 90PSI, while on the other end of the spectrum you can have a very well flowing engine make over 900hp at 10PSI (I am employing hyperbole here). Granted with forced induction we have the more likely situation of you can turn up the boost and thus create more pressure in the system which would push more air into the cylinder so you could hit 300hp with a poor flowing head at 20 PSI vs the same engine with a good flowing head at 15PSI making 300hp. Also if we are also just throwing estimated numbers out, the last numbers and the ones that mazworks quotes is 1800hp per 2.2L. That brings it down to 818hp/L. Overall I think using that engine is really not comparable. We are talking crazy race engine that has to run maybe 30 seconds at a time a couple times a year. Employing race fuel and ram air etc etc etc. The point being raised is not really the injection of fuel before or after charging, but fuel delivery. On the big block blown motors you have carbs that have fuel pulled down a passage way. You can see it if you look through the top it is almost a stream, as it is pulled it atomizes and vaporizes and cools the surrounding intake charge and such. You can sometimes find ice forming on the carb with how much heat it pulls from the surrounding. Injected motors don't really compare here as the injectors sit in the intake or in the cylinder in case of direct injection, the path is also usually much shorter, and it comes out atomized to an extent. Overall the mentioning of this is to point out you shouldn't be pulling examples from this camp (the big engine, super charged setups with carbs) as they don't apply as linearly to your proposed setup. So the long winded point reiterated is, using supercharged big block engines with carbs or a ludicrous race drag engine are probably not places to pull numbers from. With that aside the comparison that makes the most sense is in other L28ET setups. Preferably L28ET setups running E85, your desired turbo HX35 if I recall, and no intercooler. I'm not sure that exists. We can look at similar engines in terms of displacement and turbo charging like 1jz and RB25, not sure anyone has deleted the intercooler in lieu of running just E85, not sure if that exists either, I did find this which seemed interesting, but his results seem less than stellar. https://www.carthrottle.com/post/w8lxgbz/ The only way we would really know for sure is to put an air temp sensor after the injectors to see if the air charge is cool enough with E85 to be comparable, given where injectors sit that probably is not possible. Or I suppose a knock sensor would tell.

^Good eye, that is really cool, looks like the mounts are much simpler as well. Definitely an option for people who have rusted out buckets. I've heard the DR's offer better low speed response, but I'm not really sure for a race setup. The dampers at least in the BR don't feel like they react very quickly. There was a thread back where people talked about a company that offers race spec coilover conversion can't find it for the life of me, but other than that TTT comes to mind.

I agree, but based off what is seen in a traditional big block V8 with a roots type blower, they don't run post coolers. Engines that use remote superchargers that are roots like the jackson racing miata kit can run a roots type with a post cooler with fuel injection, but for the given V8 example people usually employ a supercharger and bolt carbs on top of them. My point is that those setups may work because of the carb pulling enough heat out of the inlet that the air has more capacity to be warmed by the super charger thus working. Throw the better cooling higher volume fuel of E85 and that works even more in their favor (Carb cooling + Fuel cooling) If we look at some centrifugal setups that people run without an intercooler, but with a carb...taking out the carb would make those setups not possible without employing methanol injection or things of that nature For the example of the SR20, they are running M1 from a video I watched, looking that up it is 99.95% or purer methanol. Given the point above, that makes sense, if they are running almost pure methanol, the cooling effect would be huge. (Ridiculous fuel cooling) Bottom line is I don't think those examples apply in this application. Turbo, no intercooler, fuel injection. Granted E85 does have a better capacity to cool given the higher volume usually used and ethanol content, but you would only have fuel cooling from E85. ^That above is all moot though, you can just throw more fuel at it like you say and run rich and keep the cylinders cool, you might not be operating in peak efficiency as you mentioned so all in all, probably not a problem that needs real addressing in any capacity unless you were looking for 10/10th of the efficiency. Just a fun example to contemplate and bench race. The EFR turbos are pretty neat, but seeing those setups plumbed up I get a little bit annoyed with how the hoses have to route, the use of the plastic blow off valve kind of bothers me, granted I imagine they work fine.