BRAAP

Trying to get a Chevy Cross member under the Datsun and attach some sort of suspension and steering system to it could easily be WAY more effort, time, and dollar$ than just fabbing up your own custom cross member from scratch using the Datsun suspension and steering components. Using the Chevy cross member makes no sense from a time, design, engineering, and financial standpoint. The Datsun cross member works pretty darn well, already has provision for the lower control arm, is lightweight, already holds the steering rack, everything is all there and it works really well for 98% of the Chevy V-8 Z conversions. The only mod needed to the stock Datsun cross member is the two motor mount holes need to be slightly enlarged for the Chevy motor mount, that’s it. Takes only 30 seconds with a drill motor. Then to get the engine into the engine bay of the Z car, either purchase the JTR mount brackets from JTR directly or fab them up yourself using the “plans” in the JTR Conversion manual. These brackets are really fairly simple and don’t require much of any mental thought. It has been my experience that the only time when the stock Datsun cross member doesn’t work for a V-8 conversion is when the conversion is going to be a truly wild swap with the engine in a totally different location, completely different steering system being utilized, completely different suspension system being utilized, etc. At that point, the front end may as well be tube framed at least from the firewall forward if not the complete car to meet the needs of that particular project. Good luck and keep us up to date on what your project will be and its progress,

I’m a bit wishy washy about selling them as I’m on the fence about going with a bigger cylinder head,, in short, yes I would sell them. I’d let them go for $1175 and that would include shipping to anywhere in the lower 48. These are the TFS 30400002-CNC, I paid $1299 for them from Summit. Paul Ruschman

These Trick Flow heads are a really nice head, probably good for 400 HP easily. I just bought this set that are still in new in the box sitting on my desk here, Except for this one I took out to inspect and take pics of). Trick Flow 195 CC intake Kenny Duttweiler signature series, CNC combustion chambers with the 1.47” springs good for up .540” lift, NEW still in the box. I’m considering selling them as I am seriously considering a more radical cylinder head for my current V-8 project. These heads are the Summit part number TFS 30400002-CNC. They came with screw in studs and guide plates 2.02”/1.60” Stainless valves as well. Very nice looking heads for sure. If I wasn’t wanting something more Race oriented, I would definitely run these heads, (And I still just might do that any way). These CNC chambers are GORGEOUS! The castings are very nice and clean, comparable to Edelbrock as far as casting quality goes. In looking at the ports where they meet the valve seats, as cast, the transition is very nice, I see no reason to pocket port. If I do sell these TFS heads, it is a toss up between the GM Fast Burn and the AFR 210 Race Head… Decisions decisions… Gotta love these chambers… Exhaust looks pretty good as well. Seats blend into the ports VERY nicely as cast… Intake ports are very nice and clear, showing studs and guide plates as well.

thehelix112, Yes you right on track. The exhaust restriction that Turbos present does require special attention when trying to extract the most performance with the least compromise elsewhere and this exhaust restriction is constantly ever changing while the engine is in operation. Even minute changes to outside air temp, to name one of hundreds of variables, can really alter things. Trying to find that balance over the broad spectrum of what is taking place within a Turbo charged engine is quite overwhelming. In short, Turbocharged engines do bring a lot more variables to the table when it comes to cylinder head modifications vs a N/A, Super charged, or Nitrous fed engine. This is why most engine builders/tuners play it safe by not altering the intake to exhaust bias to any great extent for fear of going backwards with Turbo charged engine. For example, a tuner may have stumbled onto a particular intake or exhaust modification that may have worked for one Turbo setup, but that same mod may be way wrong for another. You could list 100+ different variables that a Turbonic power plant deals with and to be able to meet all those demands with the least compromise is well… uh…. a daunting challenge, to say the least, and us mere mortal engine builders/tuners really don’t have the budget or time needed to devote to such a project. If one did take this on just playing with one particular engine , i.e. L-28, and with the myriad of turbos, intercoolers, intake manifold designs, etc, etc, available, this could consume a lifetime of “lets see if this works” testing? LOL… I’m sure there have been some long term exhaustive documented dyno testing with Turbo L-6 engines and it sure would be nice to read those results. Any way, thank you all for allowing me to post my views on the internal L-series 6 cylinder. We know return you to our regularly scheduled Hybrid Forum…

Ah, Boosted vs N/A… Yes there is difference in how I approach a cylinder head build for boosted engines. If it is turbo charged, typically it gets all the same treatment as my N/A heads get, unless the customer wants to alter the intake to exhaust valve size ratio to bias it one way or the other, then I will also bias any work in the ports to match this. For Super charged and Nitrous heads, more attention is paid to the exhaust side of the head including installation of larger exhaust valves, of course depending on how much boost/squeeze the end user wants to use. You see, with a super Charger, the engine is being force fed more air into its cylinders through the intake, while in contrast, the exhaust, which isn’t getting any extra help from a pump of any sort, still has to expel the spent gasses the same way its N/A brethren does, by opening the exhaust valve and pushing it out as the piston climbs the cylinder bore, but now there is a lot more exhaust gasses to exhale being as it is super charged so we modify the exhaust to help the engine expel all the extra burnt gasses. With Nitrous, since we are introducing more oxygen to the combustion process in bottle form, the same holds true so by helping the exhaust to do its job just that much easier brings the balance of intake to exhaust flow back to a closer balance in an effort to make as much power in as efficient manner as possible, whether we are building more power from boost or with Squeeze.

As some of you know and Mr Savage has seen in person, my father Ron Ruschman, put this beast together and due to couple family issues, this car came into my possession 2 weeks ago. Mom really doesn’t like the radical Z car thing, (HATES the V-8 Z), and Dad has been slowly loosing his interest as well though he has not lost his yearning for performance, he has just shifted his efforts in a direction that both he and mom both enjoy. Back to the 440 Z…. The car is a 77 280 Z, nothing special here, just your basic garden variety Black 280Z, all the original Z car instrumentation is hooked up and working, Speedo, Tach, oil pressure with a oil pressure light added in side the gauge, water temp, volt gauge with charge light, fuel gauge, even the low fuel warning light works if you can believe that! The engine is a Mopar 440 wearing a Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, Edelbrock carb, Sanderson titanium coated headers, dual 3” exhaust all the way back, some factory Mopar performance cam that lopes pretty good at 800 RPM, and a host of other goodies on and in the engine as well. He also threw in a few extra goodies in case I or the person that buys the car from me wants to tame it down a notch, such as a standard Edelbrock Performer intake manifold and a milder cam to match the milder intake, complete carb tuning kit, and the list goes on. The tranny is a TF-727 tranny with manual shift body and the shifts are not hard at all, I personally feel the shifts feel perfect, not too soft and not a “BANG hard” shift either, it just shifts positively and it shifts as soon as you shift the gear lever. The diff is the original R-200 diff with 3.54 gears and welded spiders. “How does she drive” you are all wondering right? I have run 2 tanks of super through her now, and made one trip to the PIR Late Night drags for 4 passes. The only real issues I’ve noticed with this Mopar Z is the carb needs a lot of tuning, the steering effort is noticeably, but only slightly heavier, over the stock 280 feel, one of the exhaust pipes rattles a little against the body while it is loping at idle which is an easy fix, the center console is broke, again an easy fix, and the shift linkage needs adjusting as it will go into first gear once in while if I fiddle with the shifter. With this cam, the tranny could use a slightly higher stall torque converter which would make 2nd gear ideal for launching. Doing cookies in this 440 Z is WAY more fun in than any other V-8 Z I driven to date. Just put it in 2nd gear, blip the throttle and turn the wheel, of course feathering the throttle thto keep it form over revving and YEE HAA as it sling shots you twice HARD through each rotation... Exhaust volume wise, it is quieter than I’d expected, especially for dual 3” exhaust. I was able to carry on conversations with my oldest daughter all the way to PIR for the Friday night Late night drags and back last Friday night, over 35 miles each way, without having to yell at the top of our lungs. Did I mention the Carb needs tuning? I’m not a carb guy but Dad did supply a complete Edelbrock tuning kit for the carb when I got the car. Too bad I don’t really have the time to dial this thing in to bring out its full potential. As for performance, right now it does go fairly well, even with the carb being out of tune. It’s not a handful in its current state of tune, in-fact just cruising around town, I just leave it in third and it is very placid and docile, it actually reminds me of driving my Q-45 just a bit louder inside and of course with WAY more GO when the pedal s mashed. This V-8 is an asy car to drive around town, no quirks no bad habits other than the welded diff causes the inside rear tire to chirp in parking lots while turning real sharp. I honestly feel that once the carb is dialed in, and launched in 1st gear, there is NO DOUBT it will run low 12’s on street tires and mid to high 11’s with sticky tires at over 118+ MPH! without detracting from it’s mild around town manners. While playing around with the car over the past 2 weeks, giving people rides and just enjoying the car, the carb cleared up a couple times to give me taste of what kind of power she is capable of and during those times, this car is wicked fun and would definitely be a handful to hang to in the hands of an inexperienced driver with its MASSIVE Big Block torque as 3rd would scratch for traction at all RPM’s above 3500 just by mashing the throttle! At the strip last Friday I made all my drag runs launching in 2nd gear as I didn’t want to fiddle with the shifter on the line to get into first. Burn outs in the burn out box were a breeze, just hold the brake with the left foot, blip the throttle with the right foot and the tires are turned into fog. During all my runs, the engine was running with a slight surging and flat spots through the entire rev range as the time lips show, it definitely not up to it’s potential. Best run was a 13.5 @ 107 with 2.0 60’ ft time. My others were 13.6 and 13.7 @ 105-107 MPH As side note, my wife bought one of the New G-tech PRO SS, (aka Ghetto Tech, Rice Boy electronic windshield decoration, etc,) to use for tuning customers cars when access to a dyno is not available. I have been playing with it a little in the 440 Z, not sure if I trusted it in the least at first so I decided to take it along to the drag strip and compare its results to my actual times. I was surprisingly impressed with its accuracy. Less than 1% difference in 1/8 ET, 1/4 ET and 1/4 MPH on all 4 runs. G-tech showed consistent .07 of second slower 60' ft times than my actual 60"ft, (G-tech allows the user to set the amount pitch the vehicle exhibits from squatting during a hard launch to help dial in the 60' ft if the user so desires I left it at default), and the 1/8 MPH was optimist by exactly 2 MPH on all 4 runs. On 2 of my runs the 1/4 mil ET and MPH were within .03% and one of the 1/4 MPH was EXACT! Not too shabby for one those Rice Boy electronic windshield ornaments eh? Any how, while I was out testing this G-tech last week, during one my G-tech testing runs, the engine cleared up long enough for one decent run and that one cleared G-tech run showed 12.8 @ 113.7 MPH, all the other runs were mid 13's between 107-109, similar to last nights actual track runs and the car was running similarly with its flat spots etc. I still don't 100% trust the G-tech as it is real hard to find that much LEVEL straight pavement in Oregon and traction can be drastically different etc, even though it was so consistent and accurate at the drags, I'll chalk up the one good clean smooth G-tech run as just showing that the potential is there for this car to be much faster, it just needs to be tuned and being as I am NOT a carb guy and I don’t really have the time, I’ probably won’t be the one to dial it in, I'll just sell it is. I truly believe this car has the potential to run high to mid 11's with the sticky rubber at 118+ MPH once dialed in. Any how, yes the 440 Z is alive, and it is for sale.

Yeah, those numbers are a bit odd. Wonder if he shut down just down short of the traps... hmmm...

Speaking 440 Chryslers… Great to hear that were able to get your car to the strip. Once you get control over that throttle pedal and are able modulate the power just under the wheel spin threshold, your ET should only get lower. At 317 HP, your MPH should be around 110, possibly more. The more you drive it, the more comfortable you’ll get with the car and the better your time slips will get. Good work and that sure is a nice car you have there. Took my 440 Chrysler powered 280 Z to the strip last night for the first time as well for a shake down run before I sell it. The Edelbrock carb is definitely WAY out of tune, flat spots in the power band all the way down the track. Best run of the night for me was only a 13.58 @ 107.68 MPH. 60ft of 2.05. Tranny is a Torque flight 727 with a manual valve body and as such I need to readjust the shift linkage as it doesn’t get into first every time unless I fiddle with the shifter, (really didn’t want to do that on the line), so I just launched in 2nd every pass. This Big Block 280 should be capable of deep 12’s and 118+ MPH on street tires, just needs Carb tuning and to get the shifter linkage readjusted.

Silent, I would be glad to give you my opinion on which head to use and work up a quote for your project. You can contact me off forum @ either of the 2 E-mails below; braapZ350@hotmail.com ruschmotorsports@hotmail.com Gollum, Uh, well I think my wife about covered the “Daughter” thing.. LOL Nice try though… Thehelix112, If I understand your question correctly, you want my input on the different techniques and strategies employed when building a cylinder head for Carbs vs FI. Personally, I build them the same. The only things that would be different between a head for a carb or FI application would be maybe the mounting holes, port alignment etc, for the manifold being used. Port work, valves, cam, etc, would be the same for a carbureted or FI head. John Coffey, Thank you for the link to your car. Very nice Datsun you have there. It is quite apparent that you set out to build the fastest Z you could while still keeping it a “Z” car, i.e. keeping it L-series powered, OE chassis design/pickup points remained, etc. You and achieved your goal with little to no compromises. Very nice. I did notice in the pictures you posted of your chambers, someone else did as well, that the chamber walls on the sides of the chambers appear to be untouched, i.e. not brought out closer to the fire ring which would unshroud the valves further, though the spark bolt side of the chamber looks great. I’m sure it is screamer. Ever take it the strip? DAW, Yes, there are some theories I haven’t touched on here that I would really love to try out and we have even talking about building a Test Mule L-28, (Dyno queen), for just such a purpose… As for bouncing ideers off each other, Feel free to post me privately at either of these E-mail address; braapZ350@hotmail.com ruschmotorsports@hotmail.com

DISCAIMER; I’m sure there will be those that disagree with my opinions and statements below and can even show documented proof to back up their claims, and I encourage that. I in no way claim to be THE Datsun performance guru, I’m just passing on the info I’ve gleaned from my own personal experiences over the several years that I have been building and playing with Datsun L-series engines in hopes that others will take this info and build upon it and in return share their success and failures from which all of us, myself included, can learn even more on how to get better results with fewer mistakes along the way. Now for the not so real disclaimer… The opinions viewed in this post are purely the views of me, myself and I, and I reserve the right to view my opinions anyway I see fit whether I’m faster than you or not! Void where prohibited - batteries not included - licensing and taxes extra - the surgeon general has determined that lack of horsepower causes cancer in laboratory rats - optional equipment shown LIFE'S A JOURNEY . . . ENJOY THE RIDE . . . IN A HIGH-POWERED DATSUN Ok, now on to the post…. Dave Andrews summed up the valve spring rates and cam specs pretty well. John C., beautiful setup you have there. I would like to see more specs on your power plant and some performance numbers, like vehicle weight, ¼ mile ET and trap speed, dyno figures, etc. if you have them. It’s nice to see and appreciate someone else’s work at the level yours is built to. Rubberberner also added some technically valuable input as well. Here is my input. I apologize for the novel. When it comes to tech items such as this, I tend to ramble on and on and on. When it comes to making power N/A, displacement and RPMs are the rule. As much of both as you can financially afford is the key. The “bottom end” is where you build reliability and durability, the top end is where the power comes from. As for displacement, up to around 3.0-3.1 liters is doable on a realistic budget, but the cost curve starts a real sharp shift upwards from here, (this is where the V-8 conversions start to look real good. $$$ per HP, the V-8 swap is pretty hard to beat). As for RPM,s the weak link in the Datsun engine tends to be the crank, this is assuming that you have already installed good quality aftermarket rod bolts and the pistons are forged, not OE cast. Now if a good billet crank can be had, the rods are next in line. A good friend did some testing some years ago, (Carey M, if I misquoted you here, please jump in to clarify), and found that with as light a flywheel as possible and with a quality damper, i.e. fluid damper, the L-28 crank is good for 8500-9000 RPM, after that he was experiencing crank breakages at the rear of the crank. A billet crank should allow for more RPM. Now, on to Datsun L-series cylinder heads… The biggest air flow restriction in the Datsun L-series head is the valve curtain area, i.e. the region between the valve head and the valve seat when the valve is OFF the seat. In all my L series engine builds, unshrouding the valves is always the first place I start. Even on mild street heads, I perform moderate valve unshrouding. Next, if the head is a square port head and will be used in a race only application I’ll widen the bowl to slow down the flow of air in this region. This allows the exhausting gasses to transition from the vertical plane out of the chamber to the horizontal plane on its way to the header with less chance of loosing the laminar air flow across the port floor. In dong this, the laminar air flow across the port floor will remain, (keeps the boundary layer intact), if this laminar flow separates from the port floor you will now have turbulence and this will restrict air flow considerably. (you may or not be able to catch this on a flow bench as a flow bench doesn’t measure the dynamic air flow in and out of the ports. I’ll expand on that at the end of this post). If the head has the round exhaust ports with the liners, all I do is blend the back of the valve seat into the liner. All of the heads I do, whether for street or full race, also receive a nice 5 angle valve seat, (sometimes only 4 angles can be performed do to space constraints), that I perform in house here at Rusch Motor Sports using Sunnen seat cutters, (I’ll be offering radius seats soon), and the valves are treated to a 30 degree back cut and the exhaust valves sometimes even get a nice little 45 degree chamfer on the chamber side of the head. All this extra valve and seat work mostly benefits air flow at low valve lifts, i.e. as the valves leave and return back to the seat itself. Here is my personal take on the L-series heads. E-31 and the early E-88 heads with the E-31 chambers are decent heads. They have the same potential as the other N-series heads when rules permit extensive carving. My opinion is the best place for the E-31 and the early E-88 is for a restoration project, or for a performance application where class rules dictate no material can be added to the chambers, no carving can be performed on the head and the update/backdate rules apply to the engine as an assembly, then these heads are a great choice. Now if you are not bound by those kinds of rules, you do have other choices available and being as the E-31 is becoming so rare now, these other heads are an easier option from a financial and availability stand point. The N-42 head is a great maximum effort race head if class rules allow extensive carving and welding to the head. In this case, weld the chambers, open the exhaust ports as described above, perform some serious valve unshrouding and “waa laa”, you now have a wonderful maximum effort race head that would SUCK on a street engine. (Side note; If you intend on having your valves unshrouded and have not done this type of work before, you are best served leaving this to a qualified experienced engine builder, preferably one that has been successful in extracting noticeable to impressive documented performance gains. If you are not sure what you are doing, do not attempt to unshroud the valves yourself. In experience can hinder the flow worse than what the heads were stock.) Of course there is more to building/machining/porting a maximum effort cylinder heading than just welding a chamber and/or unshrouding valves. There are items such as setting spring heights, clearancing the retainers, stem seals, and guides for the mega lift cam, deciding on just how far to go with oversize valves even to the extreme of offsetting the valve guides to allow even BIGGER valves if the cylinder bore permits, etc. The Z car N-47 head is a great street head. This head becomes almost ideal for the mild to hot street engine and even the mild to moderate race engine especially if the chambers can be welded up, (pretty much turns this head into the Maxima N-47 head which is a slightly more efficient chamber than the E-31). This “peanut” or “kidney” shaped chamber when used with flat top pistons or matching* dished pistons gives the ideal quench area which makes for a more efficient combustion process. To make use of this “kidney” shaped chamber on an L-28 running pump gas you will need matching* pistons. What I mean by “matching* pistons”, is a set of custom pistons from JE or other comparable source that has CnC the dish directly under the open portion of the “kidney” shaped chamber, not the entire surface area of the piston as is the OE 1975-1980 L-28 and all L-28-ET pistons. Any how, with this ideal squish, the engines optimum ignition advance will be less than the open chamber heads optimum ignition advance due to the more efficient chamber design. This happens because the flame front doesn’t have as far to travel to consume the entire air fuel mixture within cylinder, it now is in smaller area so the flame front doesn’t have to travel all the way to the other side of the cylinder during the ignition sequence. To better understand this concept, just visualize the open combustion chamber as being a flat wide circular disc, the diameter of the cylinder itself containing the air fuel mixture with the spark plug on one side, vs a small kidney shaped ball containing the same volume of air and fuel. Ideally a sphere shaped chamber with the spark plug in the dead center would be perfect, since that isn’t realistic, tuners just try and get as close to this ideal as possible. Some engines came for the factory much closer to this ideal, ala HEMI heads, etc. As for those round exhaust liners in the N-47 and P-79 heads, they actually flow VERY well. The liners offer a nice gentle radius as the air flow transitions from a vertical flow out of the chamber to the horizontal plane where it meets the header which keeps the air flow moving undisturbed even at high velocities where as the square ports with their really sharp short side radius doesn’t allow the air to make that transition with as much ease. What happens is the boundary layer of air along the port floor can and will separate causing the air to slam into the roof of the port and tumble along the floor of the port when the velocity gets high enough. This is not a good thing in the quest for power as this turbulence is very disruptive to air flow. This why we make that region of the port, the bowl, larger in an effort slow down the air flow to keep that laminar air flow across the port floor. Of course this only happens at very high velocities. Also, all L-series heads starting in 1977 have a slightly smaller intake port volume. What the engineers did was cast one side of the intake port wall with a “flat” in it, “D” shaped if you will. This reduction in cross sectional area starts approx ¾ of an inch into the port. This port shape is supposed to help bias the air flow as it enters the chamber more towards the middle of the combustion chamber itself, steering away from the chamber walls is passes the valve head. In theory this helps to reduce some of the air from slamming into the chamber walls of the combustion chamber. I don’t have enough hard evidence to back up this theory, but I do feel that this port bias does not detract from the performance potential of the cylinder head one bit. Now we get to the P-79 and P-90 heads. The combustion chambers of these heads are IDEAL, almost perfect once the valves are unshrouded. The only down side I see to the P-series heads, (and this down side is for the extremely radical ragged edge engines, not so much for the milder even hot race engines), is since the chambers are taller, (valves are now shorter as a result), the floors of both the intake and exhaust ports now have an even sharper short side radius and as stated previously, this is a detriment to flow as velocity increases. The transition from the horizontal plane to the vertical plane on the intake and vice versa for the exhaust, is not as smooth as the N-series and E-series heads. Now don’t take this as I am bad mouthing the P-series heads cause I’m not. I really like these heads for hot street and mild to moderate race applications. They are an inexpensive way to get the ideal squish using an OE flat top piston with a compression ratio compatible with pump gas. I have built several and will continue to build the P-90 and P-79 heads for street and mild race Z’s. What I’m saying in regards to the P-series from the stand point of building THE mega extreme N/A performance power house that is at the ragged edge of making useable power over a very narrow yet very high RPM range such as a best of the best N/A drag racing engine, these items should not be overlooked. Maxima N-47 head. What a darling mild race head this is. For mild to moderate race engines on a budget, using flat top pistons in an L-28, or even opting for pistons with a slight dome for greater than 13:1 compression, this is my go-to head. Just have your machine shop cut out the old intake seats and install the larger seats for the 1.73” or larger valves, have a competent Datsun engine builder/tuner unshroud the valves, blend the exhaust seat into the liner, and “waa laa”, a moderately high compression ratio race engine that will perform rather well up to 8000 RPM with the right cam, induction, and exhaust system. With a set of custom pistons machined so that the dish is directly under the open portion of that gorgeous peanut chamber, this head, in my opinion, makes for the perfect street head or mild race engine that runs pump gas. At the moderate level of race and above, I tend to prefer the N-42 with welded chambers and opened up exhaust ports. Now for that flow bench info I promised earlier on… Since a flow bench cannot duplicate the dynamics that are happening within the intake and exhaust tracts while the engine is actually running, i.e. sound pressure waves, pressure surges, exhaust heat, fuel enriched intake charge, valve overlap extraction, etc, flow bench numbers are nothing that should be used for comparing one head to another or bragging how good one thinks their head is! The best way to use flow bench numbers is using the SAME flow bench to compare ONE cylinder head for improvement after modifications have been performed, making note of any changes in air flow whether improvements were made or lost, nothing more. Flow benches do not represent what is actually going on within the intake tract OR the exhaust tract as mention previously, i.e. Dynamic air movement, pulses, waves, heat, etc!!!!. In real life, the valves are opening and closing causing the air to stop and move, stop and move, over and over and being as air has weight and is compressible, this constant surging will cause the pressures to rise and fall FAR above and below ambient. Depending on RPM, runner length, runner cross section, port shape, number of bends in the port and radius of those bends, valve shrouding, air density, cam timing in relation to the piston movement, (this has a HUGE effect on how the air gets moving within the intake and exhaust tracts, hence lopey idles, hard hitting powerbands, etc), there could be higher than ambient pressures at a particular RPM, i.e. a natural supercharging effect, that is why intake and exhaust runner lengths are TUNED! We have all seen where almost all Nascar engine builders have achieved over 110% volumetric efficiency on a naturally aspirated 2 valve engine by tuning the intake AND exhaust tracts to a specific RPM with specific runner cross section and runner lengths. This tuning is taking full advantage of the Helmholtz principle. Your basic garden variety flow benches do NOT and can NOT duplicate this, I’m not even sure if there is a flow bench made that can do this. The only real measure of how good a port can make HP, is to mount that head on an engine and run that engine on a Dyno, (and this is what we are REALLY after right, HP! Not just some arbitrary static flow number through a head port)! An example would be if one head that on one flow bench indicates it will outflow all the others tested, when all are attached to equivalent short blocks, the high flowing head could easily make LESS power on the dyno, but then again change the configuration a little with a different cam, intake tract, piston some shape, etc, the results would get even more confusing. Ok, I think I’m finished now. Inhale…… WHEW…….. Thank you all for allowing me to take up so much band width. Paul (BRRAP) Ruschman Rusch Motor Sports

Yes, advancing the ignition timing will allow your engine to run cooler and the engine will also perform better. These results are indicative that original timing settings were not optimized for that particular engine. As a note to those who are new to engine tuning, be careful that you don’t advance your ignition timing too far as it can be harmful to your engine. Typically you’ll find on most ‘70’s and ‘80’s era vehicles, the OE ignition setting is not quite ideal, from a performance stand point, and in some instances a very noticeable and measurable performance gain can be had just by adding 5 or so degrees of ignition advance without any ill affects other than maybe it is not as emissions friendly now. As for your vacuum advance affecting your acceleration, it really should have absolutely no influence on your WOT performance at all, unless something is amiss with your ignition system. Typically the vacuum advance is connected to a “ported” vacuum port somewhere at the base of the carb and only sends the vacuum signal to the distributor at part throttle which adds more ignition advance which in turn improves part throttle drivability AND mileage. There were some vehicles that were set up to have their vacuum advance connected to full manifold vacuum, i.e. some Chryslers etc. so most aftermarket carbs have provisions for either “ported” or “full” vacuum for vacuum ignition advance. Now if you were setting your initial advance at idle with the vacuum advance connected, (particularly if you had it connected for full vacuum at idle), then in reality your initial ign advance will be too far retarded as idle vacuum has advanced the timing and as you open the throttles, the timing then retards from the initial set point and performance will suffer as compared to the ignition timing being set with the vacuum advance disconnected. In short, a correctly connected vacuum ignition advance that is properly timed, (set your initial ignition timing with vacuum advance disconnected), will not hinder or take away any power from the engine but will improve the part throttle manners of that particular engine, i.e. driving around town, cruising the freeway etc. in a full out race car, part throttle smoothness and mileage is not a concern so vacuum advance is typically omitted for this reason. To take ignition tuning to another level, if you wanted to extract the most performance from your particular engine, one of the steps we tuners use is to find out exactly how much ignition advance that particular engine prefers through its entire operating range and then we recurve the mechanical advance via springs and heavier/lighter fly weights to deliver that optimized ignition advance curve. Every engine’s ideal ignition advance curve is different so what works best for one engine may not work so well for another. Even changing mufflers can have a small influence on the perfect ignition curve for a particular power plant. Optimizing ignition timing is just one of the many things tuners use to extract the most from their performance engines. Sorry for the long rant, WOT till you see God, then lift….. Paul (BRAAP) Ruschman Rusch Motor Sports Sandy Oregon 77 280Z hybrid, Mopar 440, FOR SALE…

First off, congrats on that wickedly fast Z. Your numbers speak of your abilities to get loads of power to the ground and move the vehicle down the strip… What is truly amazing is you are getting the OE rear end and half shafts to handle that much energy! Awesome!!! I also subscribe to the theory of reducing the U-joint angles in the half shafts to nil for long life U-joints and it has served my V-8 in keeping the U-joints alive and well under some abusive situations. My V-8 car wasn’t able to produce nowhere near as much as energy through the drivetrain as JNJ is getting, but I did abuse the bejeezers out mine. My ¼ mile times were a mere 12.3 @ 113 MPH, 60 foot times were only 2.0 seconds and I did my share of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th gear burn outs for those that didn’t believe the car would do it. 4th gear would leave well over 200 yards of rubber on the ground with the welded R-200 diff and the OE 1978 half shafts. Any how, my car was set up with auto crossing and street driving in mind, so the car was lowered with the chassis set up a little tighter than your garden variety street car chassis. Then to get my half shafts level, I raised the diff almost 2” in the car. I had to notch the upper body frame rail to clear the top of the dif as it was close the floor in the hatch area. I manufactured an adaptor that bolted to the OE mustache bar and had new holes in this adaptor for the back of the diff to mount to. I also removed the bushings on the top of the mustache bar and placed them on the bottom. This also helped raise the diff. For the front of the diff, I eliminated the cross member that nose of the diff mounts to and attached a piece of channel in the original holes that retained the “over the nose strap” for the diff. I did cut off the ends that retain the front of the control arm pick ups, had to be able to retain the front of the suspension some how right? I then solid mounted the nose of the diff to this channel using aircraft engine case through studs. In removing the OE cross member that mounts the nose of the diff, this also allowed for LOTS more room for the dual exhaust to run so it wouldn’t drag the ground over bumps. Care was taken to keep the diff input flange parallel to the tranny output shaft as well as eliminating as much angularity as possible in the half shaft U-joints. This also helped to reduce, but didn’t eliminate, the common V-8Z driveline vibe issues. My half shaft were original 1978 OE shafts with the original U-joints form 1978 with over 150,000 miles on them BEFORE in installed in my V-87 Z, I then abused them for another 15,000 BRUTAL miles, they were still good as new. No slop, no binding. That is my $.02 on long life half shafts.

Darius, Thanks for the update. The car is… uh…. well… CRAZY FAST!!! just the way we like it. What Engine management system are you using for your engine? If you would be so kind, could you also give me a break down on your power train components, i.e. engine goodies both internal and bolt on, trans, diff, half shafts, etc… Thanks in advance, Paul (BRAAP) Ruschman

When I did my first V-8 conversion, it was on a major budget. Wife was a nursing student, we raising 2 children, I was working at a reputable engine shop here in Portland at the time as an engine builder/machinist at the time. (We have since been happily married for 17 years, now have 3 children and you could say the Z car theme is going REAL strong, “Rusch Motor Sports”, I’ll update at a later time). Building my Chev 350 came relatively inexpensive as I built/machined the entire engine myself and it was nothing more than your typical garden variety MILD Chev 350. It idled with NO lope at 750 RPM, was done making power at 5500 RPM. For the most part the bottom end was bone stock with cast Silvolite pistons, etc. other than I did install Pioneer rod bolts and a Milodon windage tray. Cam was a “High Tech” 216/228 @ .050” 468/480 on 112 LC, Edelbrock performer intake, a used Holley 650 double pumper for only $50 that required NO tuning, just bolted it on and drove it. Exhaust was Hooker shorty headers, dual 2 ½” exhaust. The heads is where I spent my time. I found a set of 041 castings, my boss at the time donated a set of 1.94” 1.50” stainless valves, I added a 30 degree back cut to the valves, performed my own 5 angle grind, (I don’t “grind” seats, I cut them with Sunnen VSC seat cutters), did all my own port work, just blended in the pockets, and spent the rest of my efforts in the chambers unshrouding the valves as much as I dared, (being as they were the small valves, I already had a good start). The most expensive part of my conversion was the World Class T-5 out of a ’91 Firebird Trans Am, set me back $1500 back in ’97. When all was said and done, I put over 15,000 miles on this combo and the car ran consistent 12.3 @ 113 MPH at the drag strip on cheesy 195 60 HR 14” tires with the chassis set up for Solo II. Not bad for no more than $4200 for the conversion, (does not include the car or chassis work, just the V-8 swap including the trans and driveline.) Of course, I wouldn’t think of duplicating those efforts on that budget again. I am currently building yet another V-8 Z that will eclipse my first V-8 Z in budget AND it better eclipse it in performance.

I was going through my Hooker catalog when I came across these block huggers for the GM fast burn "D" port heads… http://www.holley.com/products.asp?product=2302HKR http://www.holley.com/BrowseCatalogs.asp?Catalog=Hooker&Page=30 Just curious if anyone here has tried these headers on any other angle plug “D” port heads and what they thought of them? I have used the old standard Hooker 2100 Block Huggers on my 041 casting iron heads in my first V-8 Z project, they worked great. Car was daily driven and ran 12.3 @ 113 MPH on some cheesy 195 60 HR 14" mud and snow street tires. The other header I’m contemplating for the angle plugs and “D” ports is the Sanderson CC1HO which I am leaning towards as it is a slightly higher quality header in terms of material used, that is if they will fit... http://www.sandersonheaders.com/pagesbypartnum/cc1ho.htm Any how, my current V-8 project is getting the Trick Flow 23 degree heads with CnC chambers, (and there is a slight chance that I will massage the chambers even further as it is kinda my thing you know.. LOL) and am in the market for headers…

Maxima N-47 Combustion chamber size is only 40 CC, TOO small, (read too high of compression) for a daily driven pump gas L-28, even with the factory dished pistons. As for the L-series 6 cylinder heads, I personally love the Maxima N-47 with it’s biased intake port, nice radius short side exhaust ports, almost perfect chamber shape/design for a 2 valve head, (I have built several Maxima N-47’s for many racers including my own personal race car), and if you have the disposable income to afford a set of custom pistons, with the dish machined directly under the chamber in the head so as to retain the squish the Maxima head has AND bring the comp ratio down to a respectable level for pump gas, for a mild to hot street head, the Maxima N-47 would be my first choice, hands down. As for compression ratio, yes, more is better up till the point of detonation. With that said, the 8.3:1 compression ratio of the L-28 can make some decent power. I.e. my person ’75 280 Z weighing in at 2800 lbs with half tank and driver, runs the ¼ mile in 14.4 @ 97 MPH. Engine is a BONE stock Naturally aspirated L-28 with Z car N-47 head that I massaged, (I reshape the combustion chambers for more air flow which in turn dropped the comp ratio down to and even 8.0:1), STOCK EFI retuned to take advantage of the freer flowing head and exhaust system, STOCK ’78 camshaft, header, light flywheel stock ign with recurved advance, Jacobs wires and coil. This same car also achieved measured 28-30 MPG on the freeway at 65 MPH, (the variance was due to hills). Those performance numbers along with its fuel mileage are pretty respectable numbers for an L-28 that only has 8.0:1 Compression ratio, though I have no doubt that the performance would only be better with something closer to 9:1-9.5:1. Just thought I’d throw in my $.02 Good night guys, Paul BRAAP Ruschman Rusch Motorsports

Disclaimer: For those of you that are educated in the realm of engine tuning, I do realize that it can be argued that Flow Benches can be compared when using set values, and to a certain extent I will agree that carries just a little water, but the intent of this post is to educate the uneducated car buff to NOT use Flow numbers to judge how good a cylinder head is but use the HP produced, i.e. a DYNO, as the ruler to compare just how powerful an engine is or is not I’ll try and be nice here, sorry if I step on any toes, but I take issue with people trying to compare quoted Flow Bench numbers. This is a subject that most, if not ALL, true engine builders and tuners HATE when our car buff customers go home and start quoting and bragging about Flow Bench numbers! That is like comparing “initial ign advance” figures! These figures are not to be used to determine if the engine will make GOBS of power or not. Flow benches have their place in engine building and tuning, but the numbers they produce are not for comparison. Flow bench numbers will give only a very limited general idea as to air flow for making HP through the head and only should be used as tool to “help” make improvements on ONE head, not compare to someone else’s flow numbers from a different flow bench! Now for those that are curious as to WHY I feel this way about using flow bench numbers for comparisons. Since a flow bench cannot duplicate the dynamics that are happening within the intake and exhaust tracts while the engine is actually running, i.e. sound pressure waves, pressure surges, exhaust heat, fuel enriched intake charge, valve overlap extraction, etc, flow bench numbers are nothing that should be used for comparing one head to another or bragging how good one thinks their head is! The best way to use flow bench numbers is using the SAME flow bench to compare ONE cylinder head for improvement after modifications have been performed, making note of any changes in air flow whether improvements were made or lost, NOTHING MORE!!! Flow benches are essentially not standardized so a person can not compare 2 different flow numbers from 2 different heads from 2 different flow benches, not too mention those flow numbers are purely static numbers! (Again, for those of you that are educated in the realm of engine tuning, I do realize that it can be argued that Flow Benches can be compared when using set values, and to a certain extent I will agree that carries just a little water, but the intent of this post is to educate the uneducated car buff to NOT use Flow numbers to judge how good a cylinder head is but use the HP produced, i.e. a DYNO, as the ruler to compare just how powerful an engine is or is not). Flow benches do not represent what is actually going on within the intake tract OR the exhaust tract as mention previously, i.e. Dynamic air movement, pulses, waves, heat, etc!!!!. In real life, the valves are opening and closing causing the air to stop and move, stop and move, over and over and being as air has weight and is compressible, this constant surging will cause the pressures to rise and fall FAR above and below ambient. Depending on RPM, runner length, runner cross section, port shape, number of bends in the port and radius of those bends, valve shrouding, air density, cam timing in relation to the piston movement, (this has a HUGE effect on how the air gets moving within the intake and exhaust tracts, hence lopey idles, hard hitting powerbands, etc), there could be higher than ambient pressures at a particular RPM, i.e. a natural supercharging effect, that is why intake and exhaust runner lengths are TUNED! I have seen where some Nascar engine builders have achieved over 110% volumetric efficiency on a naturally aspirated 2 valve engine Tuning the intake AND exhaust tracts to a specific RPM with specific runner cross section and runner lengths. This tuning is using the Helmholtz principle. Your basic garden variety flow benches do NOT and can NOT duplicate this. The only real measure of how good a port can make HP, is to run the engine on a Dyno, (and this is what we are REALLY after right, HP! Not just some arbitrary static flow number through a head port)! An example would be if one head that on one flow bench indicates it will outflow all the others tested, when all are attached to equivalent short blocks, the high flowing head could easily make LESS power on the dyno, but then again change the configuration a little with a different cam, intake tract, piston some shape, etc, the results would get even more confusing. Ok, I think I’m finished now. Thanks for allowing me to vent.. May the Torque be with you all…

Thank you for posting that picture here. I struggle with getting pics in this forum. What is the easiest way to attach pics here?

Here are 6 pictures of the SHO test fit into a 280 Z. http://home.earthlink.net/~rusch/id3.html

I removed the OE Datsun cross member and installed my custom made cross member for the Ford Power Rack and pinion and attached a borrowed Ford Power rack to it for more test fitting of the SHO in the Z. Clearance for the exhaust flange is much better yet the oil filter is still in the way. Looks like a filter relocation kit will be necessary. I’ll take some more pics tomorrow and hopefully can put them up for you to see. It seems as though my ISP is having ISSUES so I wasn’t able to post the pics I took showing the hood clearance, oil pan clearance etc. Maybe tomorrow…

SHO-Z Thank you for the pictures. I have corrected my initial post. BTW, do you still have the shop manual and gaskets for sale? If so, post me off forum. I am VERY interested in these items…

Gang, I finally got around to test fitting the SHO engine into a ’76 280 Z body. This is going to be very slow long process. I wont go into the details, suffice to say this project will not have updates for extended periods of time. Don’t worry, I plan to complete it, I also have to take care of the several other obligations I have. Back to the project. Here is a little history on the donor engine and the test fit car. The engine came from a donor car that was purchased cheap. Shifter cable was broke, tranny stuck in 1st gear. The car drove home. The car itself was cut up and hauled away for scrap. I removed the engine from the transaxle yesterday and using my trusty John Deere tractor with the Fork Lift attachment, I dropped it into one of my Z car hulks. Any how, in general the engine does fit and the hood will close! The crank height is close to optimum and set back is aesthetically pleasing, to me any how. Here are the initial issue that arose. 1) The oil filter goes right through the OE Datsun steering shaft! The fix, Relocation kit. Maybe. 2) The drivers side exhaust collector flange is right on the OE Datsun steering shaft as well. The fix: Redesign the flange, maybe. The fix for issues 1 and 2 might be able to be solved in one swoop and the benefit of less steering effort gained as well…How bout just installing an OE Ford power Rack as per Terry Oxendale which will move the steering shaft over further away from the engine all together. I have one of these racks at my disposal and I own a custom built cross member for the Z that holds this rack. I’ll post back after I try this. 3) In placing the engine as far back as I did, this puts the throttle valve in the firewall, right into the wiper motor and partly into the horizontal shelf/floor under the wiper motor. I have heard that the intake plenum on the SHO engine can be flipped around and with some mods will work. Ok, Now I have been SHOWN that the plenum CAN be flipped so the throttle valve is on the front of the engine. I would like to thank the nameless hybrid Z person that sent me those photos. 4) The oil pan does hang down below the front cross member approx ¾”- 1”. I might end up raising the engine up approx ½” when all is said and done and I’m not afraid to shorten the pan so it doesn’t hang below the front cross member. In Z that sits at stock ride height, this wouldn’t be too much of an issue but my experience with lowered Z cars, and with my Chev V-8 swaps, if the pan hangs below the cross member it will drag the ground and hit on speed bumps. I shorten the pan and clearance the oil pickup and problem is relived, tough not altogether fixed. 5) The A/C pump sits REAL close the driver side frame rail. The car that is going to receive this engine is a ’75 280 that is a factory A/C car and I hope to retain the A/C, (Getting old and now so creature comforts are taking priority over out and out race car performance, LOL). I prefer to have the engine as far back as possible but there is always going to be some compromises made in doing this. Just how much cutting welding and fabrication am I willing to do? Not a whole lot. It looks as though my SHO swap will have the front of the engine maybe an inch or two forward of where my JTR Chev V-8 swaps landed. Engine looks good in this location as well. I took LOTS of pics, oil pan below the cross member, under the hood clearance of the intake plenum, etc. and will have them up on the net within a day or so.. BTW…. I am in the market for a 5 speed with the bell housing to fit the SHO engine, (convert it to RWD). If anyone knows where I can pick one up, I can make worth their while…

Thanks for the input.. This SHO project started out from a complete SHO car, that drove. Shifter cable was broke so the car was bought at a great deal. The Powertrain and complete Powertrain wiring harness have been removed, the rest of the car has been cut up and sold as scrap, (what else is a Ford body good for, LOL). At any rate, I have the entire Powertrain complete with the ECU harness, etc. Now all I need is the rear drive bell housing and manual tranny to bolt up to it and I’m off and running.. Thanks again,

Hello guys, BRAAP is BACK!!!! Well, I’m working on a couple of project Z’s right now, LS1 power, (this project is on hold) but the other one is a go right now. Goal for this project is just to make a nice smooth zero maintenance quiet daily driver Z that is tad different from the other swaps going right now, not wild, just different. I have at my disposal a nice Taurus SHO engine that I want to install into the engine bay of a 280. Has anyone ran across anyone else converting this east/west V-6 into a north/south config and if so, what is the most common route? Thanks in advance guys…

I am assuming you are refferring to the Edlebrock Pro Flo RPM system. I have this system and from what I gathered from reading both the installation AND setup manuals is that it cannot be seperated. The programmer NEEDS this info to operate. Of course there is always the possiblitly of trying to fool the ECU into thinking the Edelbrock IGN is up nad running when infact it's not but that is another story and you should probably have already bought another EFI systems such as SDS, Haltech, etc. This is just my opnion but why would you NOT want to use the built in fully adjustable IGN map that Edelbrock already suppliese with the system? MSD is good stuff but what the Edelbrock system offers is the ability to "observe" the timing and adjust in real time from the same controller you control your fuel with. Not seperate controllers, seperate ways of controlling, etc. I am willing to bet $10 that there will be NO differene in HP and MPG with either set up once optimized. Good luck,