RTz

I've never been one to say that one EMS is 'Best'. They *all* have their strengths, weaknesses.... and unfortunately bugs. Add to it that they are so complex that the each have their own character. Just like people, some character traits are welcome to some, but unacceptable to others. By now, most of you know I sell/support Wolf3D. Is it the best? No... Neither is Motec, 883, Haltech, SDS, Megasquirt, Electromotive, EFI Technology, Microtech, etc, etc, etc. Not one available system is perfect for everyone (and there never will be). Anyone that tells you one system is the 'Best', doesn't get it. If money/time were of no consequence, I would choose a different system for each specific application/car to take advantage of its individual strengths, per its intended use. This is not a reality for most of us. This is the exact reason I elected Wolf. In my opinion, it has a great combination of features, ease of tuning, flexibility, reliability, and price. Bang for the buck is high. In reality it boils down to this... customer support is KING. If your dealer can make a system work well for YOUR application and needs, then it makes no difference what name is on the side of the box.

Nearly all of the compromises you make for a dry car work against you in the wet, and vice-versa. Ask Braap about the time I raced a pack of Vette's in a bone stock Celebrity.... in the rain. Red faces and good times!

^^^ That video could use a language warning.

Wolf's V500 is compatible with an optical trigger... in fact, that's my preference (over Hall or VR). I've adapted a Nissan optical trigger for an L28... it works perfectly. Additionally, Wolf can be purchased as a plug'n play for the RB, including a base map.

The peanut gallery has spoken

I’m not following you... If you’re speaking of the 5 entrants in SS (the above link), they were all clearly driving in the rain... they were running 80+ seconds vs. 40+ earlier in the day. Coincidentally, you happened to pick a driver that I know pretty well. Don Mckenna is my uncles father. At that time he was driving a bronze C4. You may remember it... Don has more trophies than you can shake a stick at. From first hand exerience, I can assure you that Don’s driving abilities are not lacking. He *is* National caliber. The SFR SCCA has a small salute to him on thier website, next to the above picture. “Don McKenna is one of the smoothest drivers in SFR, some say. It's clear that he can make cars do things that many believe to be impossible. Don has passed this historic vehicle on to a new generation of McKenna drivers, and now drives a blue Gran Sport.” A C4 has got to be one of the WORST cars ever built for the rain... I have to dismiss the above link. As for National trophies in Corvettes, I thought I would find a few years worth of records for you. I stopped at the first records that I found (2004) becuse, well, I think that one year makes the point on its own. Super Stock Top 14 positions are all C5’s A Stock, First and Second place, C4 A Street Prepared First and Second place, C5’s B Street Prepared First 4 positions, C4’s Keep in mind there were over 1200 drivers entered that year and that these 4 classes make up THE fastest times of ANY street legal cars. Enough about Vette’s. Your Supra idea is interesting reading... keep it up.

Thank you... I suppose there are worse things to be remembered by?

Gary, It appears that pre-'72 cars used a different bolt spacing for the retaining strap... the remaining S30 cars should be alike. Therefore, this will properly fit '72 through '78. Minor adjustment to bolt spacing would be neccessary for '70 & '71. P.S. we need to catch-up sometime.... are you autoXing this season?

PM him?

Roost, Your thoughts are appreciated. But seriously, don't sweat it. If you put forth the capital it takes to manufacture it and the energy it takes to distribute it, then the profit is all yours, my friend.

Yup, and we get hit three way's... less engine power, less molecules for the prop to work with, and less molecules for the wings to work with. All this makes for a huge performance difference with as little as a 10 degree shift. BTW, Congrats on your PP Cert.!!!! P.S. I'm with Juday... THIS is what EFI is all about.

Kudos Monzter

Asking this is like asking how to paint a portrait... there is no right or wrong way... just art. Everyone here has a different style, just like every painter. Route them as you see fit... you'll then have YOUR style

I'm thinking the royalties scenario fits me best

Tangental to the topic, but I thought I'd answer your question... C4's and C5's have collected an impressive number of National trophies in both Superstock and Street Prepared classes. In fact, the very existence of Superstock lies in the hands of the C4... pre-C4, A-Stock was "it". If you're not seeing fast Vette's, you're not looking in the right places.

Honestly, I can't believe the stir this 'whim' caused... Have at it!

If you insist

Great discussion guy's. One thing that comes to my mind is, no matter how 'ideal' the suspension, an S30 is a very flimsy car. You could have Porsche, Ferrari, or McLaren design the suspension, with an unlimited budget, and you'd still have a problem. Granted, it'd surley be an improvement over the original... but there is still much work to be done. One of the reasons modern cars work so well AND keep noise to an acceptable level is because they are RIGID. This single attribute does wonders for a car... dissmiss it, and be dissapointed. Further, keeping a Z streetable while you reinforce it, is not for the faint of heart.

Max, You're soooo good to me... and I have never done anything to you... oops, I meant for you

Thanks

. .

1 fast z, I'm a little surprised. I'm sure you've lost track of how many people told you that you "can't" join two heads together. Or, that it "won't work" and "why". I respect your candor for having the gut's put that monster together.... Whether its the right way or not, you're the LAST person I would expect to kick this under the bus.

Amen!

Prior to designing this manifold, I consulted with a few people. One of them, not surprisingly, was Braap. I asked him to list the items he’d like to see addressed. Near the top of his list was raised ports. I recently contracted Braap's services to properly blend the ports into the larger, raised runners, and also asked him to summarize his work.... Today after church I was able to focus a little effort on matching up the custom N-42 head to the intake manifold. When Ron started the design phase of this intake, he coordinated with me concerning specific details in an effort to meet his goal of building an intake that would be a definite performance improvement over stock taking into account several details that we both feel need to be addressed in a true performance induction system. One of which is an effort to straighten the port. To do that, we remove material from the roof of the port opening, leaving the floor alone. With that, Ron designed this intake manifold with a raised port centerline. This aligned the runner and port floors with each other so when port matching, material will be removed from the roof of the port effectively straightening the port a little aiding in air flow not only in port size but in port shape AND approach. In these pics you can clearly see the concept and end result. The manifold runners and plenum base mocked up on the head in the engine bay… These next two shots show the port mismatch and centerline bias of the port. In the top shot, note the port offset bias… in the lower shot you can see the virgin port with scribe line on the left and the roughed in port on the right. . . . This would probably be a good time to mention runner size.... 1) N42 manifold runner area is approximately 53% of the intake valve area (stock 280z). 2) In my observations, OE manifold equipped Z’s generally run out of breath shortly after 5500 rpm or so, depending on the build. 3) I’ve seen enough data to suggest that number 1 and number 2 are related. 4) A priority of the design was to build a modular manifold so that runner diameter and length could easily be tailored to the specific engine. The manifold pictured above uses 1.5” ID runners. This puts runner area at 74% of valve area. The runners are also 6” long (OE averages around 7.25”). This should compliment the intended use of the first engine. Dyno testing will follow to confirm success or failure. We’re looking into building adjustable length runners for the second manifold and, of course, we’ll share the results.

Cool.