RTz

Will you still respect me in the morning?

At any moment!

Clifton, If I read you right, you are suggesting that the diff. could be mounted in bearings front and rear (rotisserie style) and that an application of torque would not cause it to rotate?

Don't

Thats because the nose of the diff is solid mounted to the subframe. In other words, the subframe now does the job the mustache bar used to.

Turbo280Z. Every post has been difficult to decipher. The easier it is to understand what you want, the easier it is for someone to help you. If you're asking about the various brands of EMS's then Google some of the following... Megasquirt Wolf3D Motec Autronic Haltech SDS Electromotive VEMS AEM Pectel There are more. These are the ones bouncing around in my head at the moment.

Valid point. If you search and read the posts by Braap, TonyD, and others you'll find that they have installed their systems with that in mind. Bottom line... MS is sensitive.

Just touch your spinning carbide bit to a piece of old cast iron... cleans it right out.

Thanks for the info, Jon. I agree with you, at least empirically, there are better diff's/LSD's. This is a bit outside the scope of the original post so I do apologize... In my opinion, if a guy was on a shoe-string, wanted improved performance, and had the time to tackle the job... the C4 rear suspension (including diff.) deserves consideration. If I recall correctly, Scottie saved upwards of 80lbs, got a fully alignable, tall geared LSD, improved brakes, and to some degree, proven geometry (at least, if it were to be installed un-altered). All things that are lacking (some more than others) in a high powered Z. And... these parts are affordable, last I checked. The one thing I would do differently, if I were to use such an animal, is to retain the Vette's overall geometry and simply fine-tune the pick-up points to better suit the Z's needs. Of course, this would dictate flares of some sort. Not a perfect solution, but I have to think that its one worthy of consideration for the budget minded guy wanting a 'little extra'. However poorly the LSD is built it can be tweeked to function within reason. There are many successful cars proving so. For the record... I did have to re-shim mine at least once per season (due to clutch wear).

I can't speak for the Dana 36... but I do have a bit of experience with the Dana 44, in a competitive C4. I would expect some design similarities. With the 44, total lock-up can be adjusted beyond neccessary, without gear/clutch failure. Some people, particularly with softer suspended Vettes, have experienced rapid clutch wear (when pre-loaded appropriately). Jon is pretty well right about torque sensing... there are no ramp angles to speak of due to the spider gears being 'pinned' to the center section. Side gear seperation comes only from the bevels in the gears. To make these work, they need to be pre-loaded accordingly. There are obvious tradeoffs for doing it this way. Keep in mind... some of the fastest autoX cars out there run this diff. P.S. The early Vipers (and maybe late?) ran a 44. Quaife's are availabe for the Viper's 44... it may be possible to slip one in a Vette's 44?

Perfect. Thanks.

Hoke, I don't have concrete evidence. I will give my 2 cents though... 1) Many impressive engines have been built both ways (centrally located and 'end' mounted). 2) The larger the plenum, the less difference it should make. 3) I think, if there is an advantage, that it would be slight (or an obscure situation), assuming both are equally well designed. 4) Manifolds rarely distribute air evenly between the runners. Its a tougher task than what is readily apparent. I believe the only way a central TB will prove superior is if the rest of the elements work together. I don't believe you can 'guess and by golly' it and expect to see gains. 5) ITB's are probably more apt to get what you're after with less engineering.

Thanks Chief. It was a bit premature for public showing, being still very much in the rough. With the 'inspiring' path this thread has taken... the temptation was far to great

Katman, I realize everything is relative... triple adjustable Penske's are going to make the AD's seem like "junk". However, in your experience, considering the price, what dampers are better (for competition)? Blanketing them as junk is really not of much value... what specifically do you not like about the AD's?

Like this?... . . . . . . Not a chance

bubbles, I've seen a couple request's for a timeslip... is there no timeslip?

Katman, Interesting... I purchased a set primarily for street duty... autocrossed on them twice. They were oodles better than the Illuminas, but that's not really saying much. I never campaigned the car long enough to decide how good/bad they are. I know of a couple national level autocrossers that are doing well with them, as well as Tube80Z. The other pitfall, as you know, is that they seem to need regular maintenance.

"Good dampers", will cause the ride to be firm, even with rates as low as 200. Years ago, I ran Illumina's with a 300lbs spring. I have also run Advance Design dampers, valved for and with 200lb springs. The 300lb set-up rode 'better'.

...My favorite feature Yeah, I did disregard TB injection. TB injection was a stepping stone in emissions regulation. It was a way for auto manufactures to gain the 'control' needed for compliance, inexpensively. I can empathize with both Carbie's or Fuelies, but I just can't bring myself to the TB table... its halfway to nowhere.

Sounds SWEET!!!

typhoone, This thread is a pot stirrer If I've ever seen one ;-D I look at it this way... The narrower the engines operating conditions are, the better the carburetor looks. The wider range of expected use, the better EFI looks. For example, If you had a single cylinder engine, running a fixed rpm, fixed load, fixed temperature, fixed barometric pressure, fixed humidity, fixed fuel, etc, etc. Carb'd, it will likely make more power, more efficiently (if optimized, of course) than with EFI. On the other hand, throw in a broad range of environmental conditions, altutude changes, extreme rpm ranges, load changes, turbo's and so on... the EFI will adapt to the conditions far better than a carb. The larger the dynamic range of conditions subjected to the engine, the more EFI shines. Either way, if you're serious, give it the due diligence it deserves...

RacerX, Instead of us blindly rattling off engines... why not tell us your goals?

...And thus it begins... the never ending fulfillment of ones own work. I remember, not that long ago, a story not unlike yours... and now... many Z friends, scarred knuckles, shallow pockets, and... hailing a big grin Welcome to the 'club'

Its not that simple... that is to say, its not apples to apples. The 914 is a north-south mid-engine car. I don't recall the Z being that way In all fairness, an S30 has a HUGE engine bay. There's not much that won't fit in there A proper decision is more likely to be influenced by cost's or goal's than "what can I fit in there?".

I have to admit, the SHO is attractive. Of course, Nissan makes the VG30DE. But, in a boosted application, the SHO appears to be superior. The biggest drawback is simply that there are no foot-steps to follow in.