BRAAP

Flippin cool... Thanks for sharing...

Regarding question #3, The 240-Z came with a slightly smaller diff than the 280-Z, (R-180 vs R-200). Here is a “stock’ 280-Z, R-200 differential with the stock Datsun rear suspension taking another for the team. Good luck, Paul

AWD Roadster. Cool with lots of WOW factor no doubt. 700 HP and out of a small bock no less! bored and stroked, so a 331, 347? No matter, that’s a petty powerful little block for sure. Do you recall the torque output? Being more of a “mean/raw” car, (built to go, not show eh?), how light were you able to get the Fox platform down to? Are they as light as an S-30? Paul

Da-man, Sounds like a monster Mustang. 700 HP N/A. Was that at the wheels or crank! What motor, 429/460, 427/428 FE? Any pics of the car and motor! Sounds fun.

Da-man, A blanket statement with HP and torque specs of that magnitude as working with narry a problem through a “stock” Borg Warner T-5 comes across as misleading as it goes against conventional wisdom regarding the Borg Warner T-5 transmission, including the WC. If you have had one or more T-5’s survive at WOT and under other various performance driving conditions, in a car, with any sort of traction for any sort of time, (those torque figures as measured on a dyno with the print out, or qualified with vehicle weight and ¼ mile time slips), please elaborate as to which T-5 and how much modification has been done to that stock T-5. I’ll be honest. To me, 800 HP, and 650 lbs torque sound about the realistic max for a T-56, and a recipe for stock T-5 explosions, even the WC.

Sorry fella’s. I take responsibility for this. I was feeling like I was pulling wisdom teeth just to get some clarification and qualification to some key points. At some point, the pain of beating my head, overwhelmed rational judgment. Please accept my apology. Sorry guys. Jon has this one very much under control. Good night, Paul

Your posts thus far are painting a different picture… Please help me not misconstrue your point here… Using your experience and theory study, please explain to us how you could possibly mate an engine to a transmission and have its crankshaft centerline be at a different elevation than the engine that used to bolt to that same transmission? Ill be more specific. Lets use the Datsun transmission, bolt a Suby engine to that transmission. Now how on Gods green earth are you going to get the Suby crank centerline to be at a different elevation than what the Datsun crank centerline was? Have you separated an engine from a transmission before? You do relaize that the crank centerline MUST be dead centerline with the transmission input center line. The only way the crank centerline would change in elevation is if you altered the actual transmission elevation!

Six, You mention one aspect then spin it to another. Are you coming or going? Are we discussing Subaru powered drag cars of the ’50’s, stadium truck racing, front wheel drive pull toys, or attempting to utilize a Subaru engine in a front engine rear wheel drive sports car, that also turns corners as well as cruise the mall parking lot? I’m lost… If the Suby engine was bolted to the Datsun tranny, the crank centerline of the Suby would be the SAME as the crank centerline of the L-6, unless we raised the tranny for some other application such as a Z car rock crawler. I am pretty sure the SBC JTR conversion places the SBC crank centerline at approx the same elevation in the car as the L-6. As such, the Center of Mass of the Suby would be at least 5” lower than that of the SBC conversions and L-6. If you indeed do have actual experience and credible knowledge in this field, you really need to qualify your statements a LOT better and more thoroughly than you have been. Reading your posts is like trying to find sunken treasure toys in muddy water. Yeah, it’s pretty easy to misconstrue one thing when you come back and post a different topic or direction. Again, you need to qualify your statements more thoroughly! F1 teams spend millions to build a car that is lighter than the rules permit... so they can attach ballast to the bottom of the car, i.e. lower CG!... Ah forget it. Those actually in the know with actual first hand experience already know better. Please either qualify your “knowledgeable” statements more thoroughly or quit muddying the waters as it confuses not only the newbie’s, but is obnoxious for those wanting to further their understanding of how and why cars do what they do… When you finally catch your tail, let us know, ok?

*** edit *** Gollum posted this info already... http://linaracing.com/impreza-h6-conversion-faq.php Only 276 lbs in long block form.. Hmmm…

If anyone finds any holes in this, please, by all means fill them. This pertains to a rear wheel drive Suby Z car conversion, not an AWD version. As installed in a Subaru car, the Suby crankshaft centerline is nearly 4” inches above the half shaft centerline, (for all intents and purposes, the half shaft centerline of the Suby transaxle is being viewed spatially on the same plane as the tranny output centerline in a front engine/rear drive platform, like the Z car). On this alone, if we can mate the Suby engine to a Z car transmission vs using the Suby transaxle, that means that heaviest single item in car, (the engine), can be lowered nearly 4”. Lets get a little deeper into the center of mass of the engine. The center of mass for a Suby engine is right at or just slightly above crankshaft centerline. For a SBC, the center of mass is approx cam centerline which is 5” above crankshaft centerline, (for the L-6, the center of mass is going to be at least 5” or higher above the crankshaft centerline). The SBC/L-6 is approaching twice the mass of the Suby, and that center of mass is 5”+ higher than the Suby! To be able to drop a mass of 200-300 lbs a mere 2” lower in the chassis of a 2000-2400 lb car is quite significant, with the Suby, we are looking at substantially more than 2”, more on the order of 5”+ compared to a SBC conversion or the L-6, VERY significant! Add to this the lighter overall weight of the Suby, and its CG would be further rearward…. For a rear wheel drive Z, win win win… The Suby engine “should”, (I use the term “should” loosely) have no issue being installed 100% behind the cross member. The Suby is quite a bit shorter than a Small Block Chevy, and in the JTR position the damper of the SBC sits right over the rack. The T/C rod mounts will be an issue for a Suby conversion though. A fabricator worthy of installing a Suby engine in an S-30 could redesign the front of the S-30 so the T/C rods go forward as in the S-130/Z-31 cars, (I happen to know a competent fabricator that installed a complete S-30 cross member and rear facing T/C rod set up in 510 with a VG30DETT in the engine bay, i.e. it can be done.) Too far rearward and the car will handle poorly? This area of chassis design is very deep water and blanket statements like that are indicative of little to no first hand experience in that field. Nothing wrong with that, but before making such bold claims, be absolutely sure of the information you are presenting first. On this forum are some very educated chassis gurus and if you search, not just this forum, the topic of ideal weight distribution is on going discussion and different for various applications. To use your analogy quoted below, “when’s the last time you heard of a poorly handling Porsche 911?” It’s not that a it wont handle well, but by keeping the polar moment of inertia short, the transitional handling will improve as the tires aren’t being asked to work as hard during transitional handling. There is much more to this than just PMoI. In an AWD, especially a FWD arrangement, I agree, weight on the drive wheels is important. I’m sure the chassis gurus will have more to add… Thank you for clarifying the intent behind your posts and thank you for contributing. You may not be trying to or wanting to “rage” on this swap, but your posts were coming across more as, “the glass is half empty”, not so much constructive, regarding the feasibility of this conversion.

A few others come to mind… MkI or MkII MR-2; Porsche 914 w/SBC/LSx; Original Mini-Cooper; Honda 600; VW Karmann-ghia; VW Bus; Opel GT; Volvo P1800;

That was minus the flywheel and exhaust manifolds. Those parts were not an hand during the weighing, sorry. Depending on the exhaust manifolds material and design, I could see another 30-40 lb for flywheel and exhaust manifolds. Ron Tyler has been looking into the Suby as well for a different project.. Maybe he’ll chime in with some info…

I just want to throw out my $.02 here. I’m in no way an expert on the Suby, though it does have my interest for various reasons. After weighing one and looking over the long block, physically in size, and especially its LIGHT weight, this engine could have positive attributes useful for a front engine sports car. As Sixshooter pointed out, the Suby engine mated to its Suby transaxle offers AWD capability. Could make for a fun S-30 rally car or extreme northern hemisphere daily driver… The Suby 4 cylinder is very compact in length and height and especially its mass. As for overall weight. The Suby offers approx 150-200 weight savings over a SBC V-8. For the hardcore track guys, 150-200 lbs is quite significant. If the Suby tranny is used, the crank centerline is higher than traditional front engine rear drive layouts which does place the Suby CG at a similar height in the chassis with other V-types power plants. If the Suby is adapted to a traditional rear wheel drive transmission, this lowers the Suby crank centerline low in the chassis and by design, this lowers the CG of the single largest component of the car, the engine. With the Suby's light weight and very low CG when used with a say, a Datsun transmission in a rear drive configuration, the Suby power plant starts to look quite attractive for some applications. As stated already, the engineering/fabrication trick is to get it to fit within the engine bay of the S-30, i.e. frame rails, etc. A fabricator/engineer is only limited by his imagination. More technically challenging projects have been tackled in the past… Hmmm.. If the Suby 4 cylinder can be made to fit the S-30, what about the Suby flat 6?... or as mentioned already, flat 8? Or flat 10 or flat 12... (that would be true Hybrid, a 4 cyl and a 6 cyl mated together... ) Here is a thread with various engine weights, including a Suby EJ22; http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=125246 Suby EJ22; WET, oil and coolant. MINUS Alternator, damper, flywheel, exhaust manifolds 214.8 lbs.

Hey fellas’ this thread is starting to show signs that it is on its way to turning into personal attacks which we do not want. Simmer down fellas…. Everyone posting thus far has some good points, you all just need to keep in mind that our own ideal power plant for the S-30 is not everyone elses ideal power plant and just because we can’t see any reason to use one power plant over another, does NOT make that power plant a ridiculous choice. This is HybridZ, ALL engine conversions, are welcome. Keep in mind guys, NO auto manufacturers ever intended their 4 cylinder’s, 6 cylinders whether they were inline or V, V8’s, V-10’s, or even V-12’s for the S-30 engine bay, but we do it anyway. We all have our reasons why we choose the engine we choose, and for some applications those swaps work and perform as intended, for others, those swaps are far from ideal. There is a seat for every arse and an arse for every seat. Put another way, there is a power-plant for ever Z and a Z for every power-plant. Lets try to be mindful and respectful of that. Thank you, Paul Ruschman HybridZ staff

Yeah baby yeah....

Happy belated Birthday Doc. Sorry I’m late, we were up on Mt Hood all weekend.

Cyg, That is AWESOME! Thanks for sharing those shots.. Way friggin cool, way cool... Take care, Paul

So once fuel is added, and then spark, would that be an internal or external combustion engine?

Gollum, Good topic. Even if it doesn’t materialize anything, these sort of discussions are fun… I’ve also thought about 2 VG30E’s in passing thoughts as they are quite short and compact, some sort of simple external link between the two cranks such as toothed sprockets and couple row chain connecting the two. There is enough room in the S-30 engine bay for it, it would have lots of WOW factor and should run pretty good as well. L-8… Hmmm… another interesting concept. I forgot about the other thread regarding multiple engines.

Yeeup. I agree with JohnC 100%. The rear OE lower control arms will indeed “locate” the rear wheels laterally and longitudinally in relation the car itself and do a good job of that “locating” under some pretty harsh conditions. The stock rear control arms are fairly light weight, especially for their strength, and the geometry of the S-30 rear suspension isn’t to terrible, i.e. it works fairly well. The major draw backs of the rear suspension is the weight of the struts/hubs and the drum brakes, (the brakes are an easy issue to address). the LCA's perform their intended job pretty well, other than the lack of adjustability which those arms do offer. Not trying to thread jack, but I’ve noticed over the past couple years, a trend of people either ignoring or skipping over the front suspension of the S-30 and are eager to alter the rear suspension of the S-30. What is ironic in this is the fact that the front suspension of the S-30 seems to have more faults, needs the most work regarding alterations, yet the rear is where everyone starts their focus?!? ... We now return you to our regularly scheduled opines on custom rear LCA’s…

Very cool. It is this sort of ingenuity that Z car owners are known for. FWIW, I just went out to the shop and measured an ‘85 Z-31 TB at exactly 54mm (Mitutoyo calipers, blades against the butterfly from the manifold side). The stock L-28 TB is 50.5mm. The Z-31 TB offers a 3.5mm gain in ID. Regarding CFM at a given pressure drop, this gain is probably akin to profiling the stock L-28 throttle shaft, and at that, power gains for stock or even mild performance setup will be nill to barely measurable. Below is link regarding big throttle bodies. You might want to read through it. Don’t let this deter you from pursuing this modification, just don’t expect much in the way of noticeable seat of the pants performance gains. There is more to be had power gain wise for stock or mild performance engine in just getting the ignition timing and Air Fuel ratios just right, (typically, advance the ignition timing between 5-7 degrees over stock is good starting point for noticeable gain in torque everywhere in the power band). Cockerstar, On a stock or even mild performance setup, the only difference he would feel is that ¼ throttle now makes more power than ¼ throttle of the old TB, but power at WOT would be NO gain, regardless if it is N/A, or boosted. Regarding bigger throttle bodies and possible power gains to be had, either real or perceived, here is some real good reading…. Click ME for a good discussion regarding stock, large, and HUGE throttle bodies..

Yeah.... I remember... I'm still fishing that river in Africa...

Hugh, I haven’t the foggiest ideer what you are talking about. Since I installed the latest Java and flash updates, my dreams are much clearer and don’t hang as often…

Heli’s are very cool. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and perspectives of flying the rotary wing vs the fixed wing. Speaking of crashes... I just took the Park-Zone Typhoon Tree-D, er.. uh… I mean Typhoon 3D out for its maiden flight today, Ron Tyler was kind enough to watch the me “Tree-da-D”. Winds are VERY strong and blustery! In a head wind the Typhoon was hovering over the ground, (winds that strong!) I really should have waited for a calmer day but I was impatient and wanted to fly this thing. Got just over 4 minutes of flight, was trying like mad to get it lined up over my pasture to bring it in for a landing and it kept veering off towards to the sun till it was smack dab in the middle of the sun, couldn’t see it at all and had no idea of the planes attitude till it contacted a 75’+ foot tall fir in a nose down attitude, (apparently the plane was headed “down”!) Immediately cut power as it tumbled to the ground hitting as many branches on the way down as it could. Got to the carnage, both wings were forcefully removed from the fuselage, left aileron busted in multiple places, left aileron control arm on the servo busted off, though the servo is fine! Rudder servo has stripped teeth, and a twig impaled the right side of the fuselage at the T/E of the main wing, I’m leaving the twig impaled as a memento, plus it just looks too cool. Tracking down parts now…

Turbo spins, shaft has just a little radial slop noticeable on the compressor side, (turbine side has no slop). I’ll take $100 if you want to pick it up, or $150 shipped within the lower 48 states. (This thing is HUGE and shipping alone could easily top $50)