BRAAP

Ala-bomb-a-rama… Very cool. I like the display… Can you get it to animate a rolling tire doing a foggy and then rolling off the end of the screen… Post it in the FOGGY burnout thread… I also like the HUD idea. Definitely carries a lot of WOW factor. Are you going to use the HUD film as used on the early 240 SX for your HUD project?

Very interesting. All of those V-8 cranks in that video, on the rack etc, were dual plane. Thanks for the link. Too bad the video isn’t in English. So does anyone know what Ferrari car is getting those 360 degree cranks, and does anyone know if any other Ferrari V-8s were dual plane, i.e. vintage Ferrari? The 308, 328, F-40, 348, 355, and 360 are all single plane, or at least the early 360's were, I have no idea what the latest iteration of the Modena might be using.

WOW! Where did you find this dusty ole thread? Sandy Oregon here. There are quite a few other Oregonians here as well.

Thanks for the tip guys. That defiantly would help in clarity for sure. For some reason I have this terrible habit of using the camera.

Hit the nail on the head. It IS the firing order due to the single plane crank, (180 degree crank), that ultimately delivers that crisp “braap” exhaust note instead of the coarse rumble sound we associate with domestic V-8’s It is NOT the heads, valve train, mid engine vs rear engine, etc. Those exotic heads and cams do allow the engine to breathe and rev, but are not responsible for the crisp exhaust note. For example, a little SBC 283 with open exhaust can sound just like a 454 Big block, even the VH45DE and Toyota 4.0 V-8. The Japanese V-8 have exotic multi valve heads and 4 cams etc, but their exhaust note is the SAME as the domestic V-8’s with similar exhaust plumbing and mufflers. That is because they have similar firing orders. Now the Ferrari V-8 utilizes a single plane crank, completely different firing order. THAT is what makes them sound like they do.. This has been discussed at length in another thread. Here is an excerpt from that thread… http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=111714

I performed the old distributor modification that Grumpy mentioned. I found an old dizzy in the U-pull yard a few years that had good bushings, spent a little time on the lathe and wa la.

To put it simply, it wont burst at 200 PSI, but it WILL leak at EFI pressures of over 30 PSI, been there done that, didn’t get the T-shirt. Just as you, I saw the high pressure rating and thought why not for my EFI race car, so I tried it. Leaked big time. No matter what I did, used an alternate square O-ring, polished the sealing surfaces, tried different torque values on the bolt, etc. It always leaked a steady stream, so I gave up on that cheap POS and spent $70 I think it was back then, for a real billet aluminum fuel filter that does not leak. I strongly feel that you get what you pay for, and when it come to fuel supply components, it isn’t worth the safety and fire risks to skimp using the least expensive parts, including the rubber hose. http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=MAA%2D3160&N=700+400249+4294852562+115&autoview=sku Good luck.

What CAS is that exactly, i.e. what vehicle and years did that come from? Thank you, Paul

Something I noticed as well. Rons manifold port diameter is 1.5”, which is a nice increase in cross sectional area over OE, thus requiring port matching. Being as Ron also biased his ports upward, effectively creating a larger centerline radius in the port, (the floor of the manifold port lines up with floor of the port in the head), all material that is removed from the head when port matching is taken from the roof of the port. A port diameter of 1.75” is great for super high strung L-series engines, but getting the ports in the cylinder head to that size is going to require sonic testing of the port walls themselves during the porting process, especially if the port is biased “upward” like Ron did. There will be an issue of hitting the water jacket when port matching out to 1.75”. Here is how the 1.5” port lines up to the head currently

Excellent info Tony. Thank you for the schooling. I for one am definitely learning a lot from this thread.

Okie dokie. In the picture below is what I refer to as the EFI Umbilical cord. This is the connector that contains the wires that communicate between the car and EFI. This connector is under the dash, just to the left of the steering column. The connector is a 6 plug connector, one of the middle ports is empty. The other middle port is the BLUE wire RPM signal. 1) White with black stripe is “ignition ON” signal. 2) Black with Yellow stripe is the “start” signal. 3) White with red is battery hot. 4) Green with blue stripe is Fuel pump power. 5) Blue is RPM signal. It is this “blue” wire that we are currently concerned with. On the “car” side of this plug, the wires are colored as listed above. On the EFI side of that plug, the wires are all numbered and green, except for the RPM signal wire which is black and is labeled #1. (There is also a quick drawn schematic of the ignition trigger/RPM signal. Red represents the jumper wire mentioned below.) Unplug this connector and verify continuity between the “blue” wire at this plug on the car side of the connector, and at the negative post on the ignition coil. If there is NO continuity, somehow or another the blue wire was cut, severed, or disconnected some where between the ignition module and the Tach/ECU under the dash. You can use a jumper wire from the negative side of the coil to this blue wire to give the ECU the RPM signal. (make sure your reconnect this plug). That may also get the tach working as well. Let us know what you find.

Ah ha… Now it sounds like we are getting somewhere. If the engine runs on starter fluid, the tach should work as normal and display RPM. If your tach isn’t getting its signal, than more than likely the ECU isn’t getting that RPM trigger signal either. That would definitely cause your ECU not to pulse the injectors. (fingers crossed that we are on the right trail here…) I’m going to go through my wiring diagrams and also go out and look over both of my ’77 parts cars to verify the RPM signal wire routing,(Blue wire), for you to trace and test. Be back in few…

If you haven’t seen this project already, this should help shed some light on L-series port sizes. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=117607

If the proper care is given to the car on a regular basis, then yes, the timing belt is an easy “preventive” maintenance item and for the most part, easy to replace if caught before it breaks. What I meant by my post was that some people will neglect the fact that that timing belt is a maintenance item and these same people will drive the car till the timing belt breaks, which then bends/breaks many, if not all the valves, (depends on how may RPM it was turning when the belt lets go). So instead of rebuilding the heads with new valves, (possibly replacing pistons/rebuilding the entire engine depending on how hard the valves hit the pistons and how much they rattled around in the chambers), it is usually cheaper and easier to just purchase a used engine, typically JDM, and swap it in. Typically, if the timing belt was neglected, who knows what else was neglected, ie. oil changes, tune ups, other regular maintenance items.

You’ll also notice when looking at used Z-32’s, quite a few of them are not running with their original engine, in fact the ratio is pretty high compared to the S-30 cars that are 22-30 years older. Some Z-32’s are on their 3rd and even 4th engines. My guess is these owners are replacing timing belts using the complete engine change program, if you know what I mean… As such, when you see a Z-32 that is on its 3rd or 4th engine, buyer beware. There is a reason the car is one its third or fourth engine, i.e. NO preventive maintenance form the owner and who knows what else is wrong and not taken care of on that car.

YEAH!!!! I'll take 2, they're small. I Saw another clip of that car beating a Ferrari 430 at the strip. Claims low 12 second 1/4 mile.

This thread fired me up to spend this afternoon measuring a few EFI intakes that we have laying around the shop and posting those results. Mind, you I only measured 4 manifolds. 2 of them are Turbo intakes, the other two are N/A. One of the N/A is a non EGR P-82 off a friends 280-ZX, the other is a NON EGR N-42 intake manifold. I have no idea what years the Turbo intakes are, sorry. I’m sure measuring all the EFI intakes that Nissan used would be more accurate, but I strongly feel the results I acquired and posted here are good enough for the intent of this thread, i.e. I don’t think measuring them ALL will reveal anything not found here. Also, keep in mind, these are cast parts, and as such, there are some pretty drastic differences between manifolds, let alone within each runner due to the casting molds etc. I started out also measuring the runners horizontally as well as vertically, but the casting part line was skewing the measurements so much, and being as the runners are, for the most part round not oval, I just used my vertical measurements. There have been strong claims made both ways as to whether the Turbo intake manifolds have larger diameter runners as compared to the N/A manifolds, (I have taken part in those discussions myself). In summation, yes the Turbo manifold has ever so slightly larger runners, and in defense of DRAX, that difference is NOT worth any effort to replace any other existing OE EFI intake that you may be already using. (I take back all the statements that I made previously in other threads in regards to the Turbo intake manifolds being a worthwhile upgrade). ALL of the OE EFI manifolds are RESTRICTIVE, PERIOD! No real gain in power will be had using one over the other. There are much bigger performance gains to be had in just dialing in your ignition timing and Air Fuel ratios than switching to a Turbo Intake manifold. Best case, the Turbo intake runner has only 6% more cross sectional area in the ports than the N-42. 6% cross sectional area in the port runners is a small increase in cross sectional area, but it isn’t going to show squat in power or ¼ mile times on a stock engine, and on a radical engine, boosted or N/A, if you are using ANY of the OE intake manifold’s, you are just shooting yourself in the foot. NONE of the OE EFI intakes will allow any of your other power producing parts an/or modifications to perform anywhere near their optimum. If a real marked performance gain is your goal, make sure that none of the OE EFI manifolds are on your engine. They can be made to look real nice and will perform respectably, but more power can and will be had by switching to an aftermarket manifold with larger than stock diameter runners. Extrude hone was mentioned. I would agree that if the runner could be safely opened another .100” using that process, that would help. Realistically, opening it up another .200” would make it worth while, but I’m not sure there is enough material in the runners to safely remove that much using the extrude hone process. Also, the cost of extrude hone for a little gain is something that you’ll have to weigh against your bank account. For some, it might be more cost effective to spend a little more for a custom intake which would allow the rest of your performance parts and modification to do their job to the fullest, not just partially. Here are the details of this afternoons measuring session on these manifold runners. I measured all 6 runners of all 4 manifolds and I measured each and every runner in 3 different locations along the length of the runner. I was using my machinist snap gauges and Mitutoyo 0-12” dial caliper. First measurement point “A”, is 4 ½” from the head flange. Point “B” is 2 ½” from the head flange. Point “C” is at the head flange, ¼” in from the flange surface. Top pic shows the manifolds that were measured. Second pic shows the locations at which the measurements were taken, “A” “B” and “C” respectively. Third pic is each and every measurement taken at all three points in all runners of all 4 manifolds, to within .005”. Average runner diameters per location, avg per individual runner, and avg overall. At the bottom is the square area of the averages and the % of difference between the two N/A vs the Turbos, (I used 1.308” Sq/in for the Turbo Reference).

WOW!! Nice work. Congratulations and keep up the good work. Paul

If the AFM is bad or even completely missing/unplugged, the ECU will still pulse the injectors, though at the wrong pulse width, they will still pulse. The AFM IS not the reason your injectors are not pulsing. Have you verified that the dropping resistors next the clutch master cylinder are connected? Also, you really should verify without doubt that the spark plugs are indeed sparking! Pull a spark plug, lay the plug on the valve cover with the spark plug wire attached, be sure the metal body of the spark plug is touching the valve cover. Try starting the engine. If you see that the spark plug is sparking, continue troubleshooting the EFI. If it does NOT spark, then your "injectors not pulsing" issue is ignition related. If the ECU does not get a spark signal from the ignition, the injectors will NOT pulse at all. The RPM signal is the ONLY signal the ECU uses to trigger the injectors. The base pulse width is derived off the ignition input signal. All the EFI parts and components will have power where they should, but if there is no spark, then there will be NO injector pulse either. If the tach bounces while cranking, that is “indication” that the ECU should be getting an RPM signal. The Tach uses the same signal as the ECU. In your EFI troubleshooting, you might try swapping out EFI relays. I know this has been covered in this thread already, but haven’t heard if you were able to rule out that as being the issue. Keep us posted…

Military.. The Hybrid-Z of the skies in WW-II, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. The Boeing B-17 holds a VERY close second in my heart.

I know this is going to sound like nit picking, but I don’t mean it that way. I’m just looking after you so you don’t get flamed… There are quite a few people on this forum that will take offense to someone stating that one engine is “best” or “better” than another, even within categories, styles, or types. (I think there is even a rule about that sort of talk on this forum). Just keep in mind that words “best” and “better”, when used in conjunction with power plants on this ”HybridZ” forum is entirely and totally subjective, for any number of reasons, ie. power to weight ratio, exhaust note, packaging reasons, number of valves per HP, etc. . One guys idea of “best” is another guys interpretation of “junk” and vice versa. So as such, even though someone may not like another’s preference of power plant, they generally do not bad mouth that power plant here on Hybrid-Z, especially in a thread dedicated to that particular power plant. Again, I’m not trying to be harsh, just looking after the padawan.. “May the Torque be with you young Padawan…”

Oh doggy… I’ve lusted over the cross-ram style EFI IR manifolds for the SBC ever since I first seen one, I think Moon made one in the late 50’s or 60’s, (Grumpy would know). Every time I see one I get this urge to shed my clothes and rub against it.. . . . uhhh.. well…. Uh… .. hmmmmm…. did I just say that out loud?!?!? Any how, To answer your question Grumpy, pretty much any speed density aftermarket EFI system will work with that manifold just fine. Are you considering one for yourself? This style of Cross Ram EFI manifold is also available for the LSx engines as well.. SBC version... And here is the LSx version…

Ooops. I see that you have already posted in that thread. You still should definitely post these award winning shots in that thread as well.. Again, very nice work.. Thank you for sharing.

NICE work!... Those are GREAT shots. There just so happens to be a thread here on Hybrid for pictures just like what you have posted here. You should post them and others like this in that thread.. “Z car photo shoot” thread… http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=121555