BRAAP

For what it's worth, Felpro offers 2 different head gaskets for the L28, each is respective to the block and its different coolant passages on the deck surface as Jeff mentioned, N42 vs F54. While I had both in hand this last summer, RTz and myself were casually noting the distinct differences between the two head gaskets and the coolant passages when set next to each other, but never took any further than that. initial inspection didn't reveal anything that stood out as "ah-hah", just that they were both quite different in the coolant passages... Out of the FelPro catalog;

Great info Jeff thanks. Regarding the sight windows, something like this? I have two styles, one with perforated shield, the other just glass. Plain glass; With the perf; Regarding the FelPro gaskets and it's covering of ports that should not be covered, I am assuming you are talking about the L28E gasket when used on the F54 blocks. have you looked at the other Felpro head gasket for the earlier L28 to see how its coolant passages line up on the later block, (N42 gasket on a F54 block)? I had both gaskets here at one time with both an N42 and an F54 block and was going to map out the coolant passages that both gaskets covered and uncovered for both blocks, then swap them to see what was changed and if it was even feasible to swap gaskets.... Jeff and/or Tony, do you feel it is worth investigating or does it cover too many of the vital areas regardless? I think I still have both blocks here, I can get both gaskets again?....

Are you building a dedicated strip car, running in the 8's 7's? As MAG58 mentioned solid axle seems like the easiest most logical route especially with solid axles ability to get he tires to bite in a way IRS just can't do. I do admit, it would be cool to see just how far IRS can be pushed even if for no other reason than just the sake of doing it.

Gen I SBC 350, .030” over bore, 2 pce rear main, flat tappet. Cheapo $99 Silvolite flat top cast pistons. Stock 350 crank. Stock 5.7 X-cap rods w/Pioneer rod bolts. Hamburger oil pan, Melling M55 oil pump. 041 casting iron heads ported be me, 1.94"/1.50" valves, roller tip 1.5 ratio cheapo rockers. Basic Edelbrock Performer dual plane intake, Holley 650 double pumper carb, (bought used, no jet changes, only idle mixture adjust). Hi-Tech Tork Link cam flat tappet cam, 21x/22x @ .050", 46x/48x" lift, 112 LSA. Glass smooth idle at 750 RPM, Hooker 1 5/8" primary shorty headers, dual 2 1/2" exhaust, (cheesy $19 glass packs had only 2" ID). Stock HEI with performance coil and mild module, Jacobs wires, NGK spark bolts. Trans was a W/C T-5 from a '91 Firebird, Centerforce-II clutch, GM lightweight flywheel, R-200 3.90 welded diff. Engine was nothing special, but ran hard. Car was a daily driver '75 280-Z, full interior, chassis set up for Street Prepared, with the V-8, car ran OSP-O. Weighed 2950 lbs with half tank of gas and driver, (1400 on the front, 1550 on the rear, rear weight biased). This set up was daily driven for over a year in this configuration, ran consistent 12.3 @ 113 MPH at Wood Burn Drag strip with cheesy 195 60 HR 14" all season street tires, factory ZX 14” x 6” six spoke wheels.

MiKeL 260, You have long road of learning ahead. Yes a twin cam head is doable. Is it within the realm of a new Z car owner or relatively green car guy? The answer is a resounding NO, unless he has the budget to purchase a Z that already has one, (good luck). I would start by researching twin cam L series, via Google and also here on this forum. Maybe one of our long term members would be kind enough to give a few links to get you started.

Not to put too fine a point on the subject, but if you have enough power, enough destructive desire, and the ability to abuse FAR beyond what is required to be truly fast/quick in any Z, then NO diff will hold up and you'll bust it every time. Now take a smaller, known weaker differential, (the R-200), more than enough power and traction that drags the rear valence on the asphalt, possibly enough to quite literally flip the car over backwards, and try as hard as you can to go as quick AND as fast as possible without busting the diff, you’ll be rewarded with a fast car as pictured below. Add a beefier diff such as the R-230 and chances are you will have more fudge room under more extreme conditions, (i.e. drive more abusively without failure), but honestly, if you truly need more differential strength than what is depicted below, you are only being abusive for the sake of showing the world your ability to bust parts because you can, not because you want to be fast. For what its worth, this V-8 topped with a Blower and dual quads is also running N2O, R-200 differential, and the drivers admit to not being ginger on their launches! Anyone who thinks they “need” more than an R-230 in an S-30 chassis to go faster, either doesn’t know how to drive or deserves the empty wallet to replace busted parts! Of course, that is just my opinion.

Exactly! Keeping an open mind and not letting the bent towards the LSx sway you, (that is my bias as well, but keeping an open mind means just that), I as the other guys that posted are biased towards the LSx. Realistically, within the established $5000 budget and 400ish WHP power goal you established, here in 2010, BOTH can and will deliver! What separates the ideal route for YOU to take right now is how resourceful you are regarding locating the power-plant core from which to build that power from and the necessary parts to meet that goal! For every LSx claim that posts 400+ WHP in this thread, you can undoubtedly find 2 traditional SBC builds at the same measured wheel power level within similar "as running" budgets, mainly because it has been around since 1955 and it has that many more years of development behind it. The Engine-Masters challenge is a premier example of this! Not just peak power, but "average" power, (power under the curve), per Cubic Inch Displacement over a broad RPM range, (again, not just peak figures), which would naturally favor the more modern design such as the LSx and especially the OHC variants like the Ford Mod motors and modern Chrysler HEMI, and even with several LSx entries, the traditional small block still reigned supreme in “power under the curve”! One LSx placed in the top 4, the other LSx's were beat out by small block Chevys, Fords, Chryslers, Vintage Mopar Hemi's etc! In short, don't let the bias towards the modern design sway you as the end all be all. Yes it “should” be superior, but in reality it is still proving itself, especially within a particular budget cap. I have no doubt with the same time and effort in development, the LSx and the other modern power-plants will show their superiority over the mid '50s designs. Those powerplants are still actually quite new and their supremacy at specific power levels, and key here is, “within a specific budget” is just starting to match that of the elder generations of powerplants. In 5-10 years I can see the LSx produce more power for less money than the traditional small block. Right now, in 2010?.... That being said, I am bent towards the LSx, even chose the LSx for my personal project, mostly because I already had a core LSx in my shop to start from, (the 5.3 from my wifes Suburban that ate its cam), and wanted to learn more about this new modern powerplant that has MANY attributes that are very attractive from a design and engine builders perspective. 6 one, half dozen the other. In 2010, with $5000 and 400ish WHP as the goal, this really boils down to your personal preference...

Bo, I totally sympathize with your concerns regarding the posting of ignition timing figures, especially being a Turbo L-6 operator. At the higher load bands where damage is more severe and happens much quicker, i.e. under WOT, concern is definitely warranted. At light loads such as cruise, ignition timing requirements for N/A and Boosted will be similar and neither will be more damaging than the other under those same light-load conditions, generally speaking. At cruise, depending on the amount of load, 41 degrees is even considered conservative. It is common to see as much as 55 degrees at light load moderate RPM, in OE or high performance tune. Moderate to hot engines, boosted or N/A under the same load conditions can still run that much timing advance, in that light-load band.

Bo, It's ok, really, just relax. I can appreciate the Turbo L-6 guys skepticism of ignition timing. Where the Turbo guys pop their head gaskets is in the high load high KPa range, above 120-140+. What I am talking about is in the light-to-no load range, in the 40KPa range, (that manifold pressure is below normal cruise conditions), 45-48 degrees is actually still conservative and probably within or less than the OE ign timing range at that manifold pressure range. You guys all caught up in Sequential Distributorless Ignition Sytems, (D.I.S.)! You recall that little vacuum advance canister on the side of the OE Datsun dizzy? Have you ever plotted out the actual ignition timing of mechanical AND vacuum advance when fully activated? Turbo or N/A? That little device actually ADDs even more timing on top of the mechanical advance during light throttle cruise conditions, (less than WOT conditions) to enchane MPG, overall drivability and even emissions. Trust me on this. at part throttle cruise, say 450-60 MPH on straight level ground, your L-6, Boosted or N/A will run more efficiently between 44-54 degrees total ignition timing, (Mechanical AND vacuum advance, above 3000 RPM)! For those thinking this is new fangled theory, it isn't. This is basic ignition timing 101, has been around since before the Z car was even manufactured, yet still applies to the L-series powerpalnts!

If they would be, "a lot of help for answers", then I say get em! Most likely those books cover the aspects regarding the nuances of swapping an engine with TBI or TPI into a vehicle that did not come from the factory with TBI or TPI. If you are installing a TBI or TPI GM V-6 or V-8 power-plant into another vehicle that didn't come with that system originally, chances are pretty good the information within that book will help in getting such a project up and running with less hassles, i.e. a shallower learning curve so to speak.

Oh yeah!

Not sure the story behind that, but this medium sized poster I have hanging in my hobby room in the basement seems to fit, (my apologies for going so far off topic...)

That is VERY safe/conservative, and in my not so humble opinion, an EXCELLENT beginning timing curve for an initial tune to start tuning a boosted L6 from! The only thing I would change is to add more timing in the 2500+ RPM columns below the 80KPa rows, maxxing out at approx 45-48 degrees in the 40 KPa row, (will help tremendously in MPG and tip in throttle response, that's about it). From this point, you should be able to add timing in small increments till power plateaus and/or audible/knock sensor recorded detonation shows on the dyno, (Audible meaning, standing literally right next to the vehicle in a safe location), then back off a couple/few degrees, compensate for varying conditions such as ambient and inlet air temps as necessary etc.

1) ".... In related news this evening, Frosty the Snow man was found by hikers bobbing in the Snow in upstate New York yesterday. Authorities told us a failed attempt on Frosty's life was carried out by an angry mob of Salvation Army Santa's after trying to drown the happy Snow man with Ice Shoes in only 4 and half feet of snow..." 2)"... mmmph...mmphmmmphmmmph.....mmmph....." 3) New Yark Quick-Snow.

Yes. The "How to modify your Datsun/Nissan OHC engine" book, (the L-series builders bible), by Frank Honsowetz, page 91. Head-bolt threads with oil as well as under the head of the head-bolts. It went on to say that Anti-sieze can be used under head of the head-bolt as well. It did not mention it's use on the threads, i.e. use oil. I don't have a FSM handy to verify if it's mentioned in there or not. As a professional engine builder, engine fastener torque specs are assumed to be with oil unless otherwise noted, always follow the manufacturer recomendation.

My apologies if this comes across as harsh, that is not intention. To not use oil on threaded fasteners that are to be torqued to a specific value when "oil" is the listed lube, and then advising using a different lube without that lubes matching torque value for that fastener is not sound advice. With head studs, oil under the studs resulting in any hydraulic action will not affect stretch of the stud during the torquing sequence, only how deep it gets installed in the head. Proper seating of the studs during installation should be verified and done prior to instaling the head. The hydraulic lock you speak of would apply if you pumped oil down the blind bolt hole. Light oil on the threads of the bolt is acceptable and has a torque value associated with it for a reason. Anti seize can and will result in the same hyrdraulic lock issue that oil can give, if either is used inapropriately. Key here is to know what you are doing, do not guess or second guess what is known to work. Yes, hydraulic effect would affect the bolt stretch for a given torque value. Again, key is to know what you are doing. Regarding bolt torque and bolt stretch. When oil is prescribed for a particular bolt with a particular torque value, then oil is the correct lube to use as its coeffecient of friction matches the torque values given to deliver a specific bolt stretch which is the end result we are after. Changing the lube is not recomended unless specified with a given torque value for that lube. ARP lists two different torque values for their hardware. One spec for oil, the other for their moly lube because each has a different coeffecient of friction which would result in different amounts of bolt/stud stretch for a given torque value. Again, knowing what you are doing is key, do NOT second guess the manufacture of the hardware in regards to the lube to be used, whether it is the OEM, ARP, or other. Possible, but not likely. Improper torque sequence is about as likely a cause as not enough of the correct lube on the bolt threads, AND under heads of the bolts. Most likley detonation was the cause for the failure, the root of cause of the detonation is still under investigation, (awaiting ignition timing tables as that is the most likely culprit on top of the L-series already hyper sensitivity to detonation, covered earlier in this thread.) Hope that helps, Paul

Too many variables to accurately give a "safe" time frame, hence the 6-7 years we commonly hear about. Variable such as type of tire, driving conditions/style, tire loading, environment to which the tire is subject, (sunlight, temp swings, etc), all have a bearing on any tires “safe” life expectancy. Exposed to continual sunlight, heavily loaded conditions when in use, etc will cause a tire to fail much sooner than one that was kept in a temperature controlled garage when parked where sunlight doesn't hit the tires, is not heavily loaded when in use etc. 6-8 years for passenger car tires is probably a safe conservative time frame. My personal experience recently is with our 1998 Class-A 33” motor home, tires manufactured in ’96 still have over 75%+ tread, visually they look great, internally, VERY dangerous as I recently found out! This year we made a 5 hour trip down south over Thanksgiving, 2 tire blowouts on that trip! Details and pics here; http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=156896

Yes, I agree 100% Again, your visual appearance of a faster spinning prop is not a Z car engine nor are you using Z car starters! The aircraft is a much older technology starter replaced with a modern design, as such it should be faster. Again, not a modern L-6 using either of the available L-6 starters as per the original posters question! Yes, L-6 clutch flywheel is comparable in static weight to a Mcauley aluminum prop, (don forget the aircraft also has a flywheel sandwiched behind the prop). No they are not comparable dynamically as seen by the starter upon engagement. Dynamically the aluminum prop has a larger polar moment due to its much larger diameter which has its mass further out way for the hub center vs the flywheel and clutch assy. In your defense I will concede that by design, some aftermarket manufactures will design their gear reduction starters to spin faster than non gear reduction units. I don’t know of any specifically but I do believe they exist. But that as well as aircraft engines have NO relevance to the original posters questions regarding his 260-Z! Now please, lets keep the discussion within the context and topic of this thread as posted by the original poster! Thank you.

Yes, get one. The later gear reduction starters are a superior starter to the older ones in how makes use of the batteries electrical power to turn over the engine at sufficient speed to support combustion for starting, and in most instances, are lighter weight. Yes again, more torque by virtue of gear reduction, so no it WONT spin the crankshaft any faster. In keeping with the context of the original posters question, mostly stock L6, NO, the Z car gear reduction starter will not spin his Z car engine any faster than a traditional Z car starter, even if he did bump up the compression ratio! The aircraft analogy really isn’t a good one here. For one it is a totally different engine design and secondly, the prop is effectively a huge flywheel that the Z car engine just does not have contend with. If trying to start your car while in gear on level ground, that would be a more fair comparison, then yes, the gear reduction starter will get the engine up to full cranking speed in less revolutions by virtue of more torque, and if the starter or battery were weak, may be bogged down to the point it slower than gear reduction, but only because it is being asked to work harder than it was designed to. Also, many aircraft still flying were manufactured back 1930’s-1950’s. Those old starters were just slow any how, even brand new version of those old starters, and replacing one with a modern starter, gear reduction or not, will spin faster. For trivia sake, the gear reduction starter as used on Z cars since 1978 is the same starter, by design, as sold currently in the aftermarket as high performance gear reduction starters for the Small and big block Chevrolet!

Exactly!

Yes, keep us posted.

Have you tried the Nissan Dealer parts counter?

Previews on TV make the movie look like just another fantasy cartoon aimed at 13 year old kids. We weren’t even interested in spending the money for renting it when it moved off the “new release” shelf at the rental store based on those previews! Reviews from friends said the 2d version was really good from a visual standpoint, though the story was predictable, not as adolescent as the previews make it out to be, (reminds one of how the Native Americans must have felt...) Then another friend who saw it in 3d said we HAD to see it in 3d, would even pay our way if that’s what it took, so Sunday we loaded up, bought tickets ahead of time for the matinee, $9 a head, got there early for good seats to a sold out theatre! WOW! Amazing! Going to the movies has always been fun, some films do a pretty good to a really good job of drawing the viewer into the movie and the characters, (quality in production, acting, directing, and editing will do that), this movie in 3d immerses the viewer into the environment to a whole new level. The story itself is predictable, built upon the tried and true Hollywood premise. Good vs Evil, climax is the warmed over main character hand to hand fight scene, boy gets girl, etc… yawn… What makes this different is how the 3d carries you into the environment. The attention to detail regarding the CGI is incredible. A couple of the characters and their roles are a bit wimpy, but it plays out well and fits the movie. If you saw the movie in 2d and enjoyed it even just a little, you owe it to yourself to go see it in 3d! Trust me! This movie in 3d isn’t just a small step forward in the movie going experience, I truly feel it sets the standard for movies to come, much like the original Star Wars did back in 1977! It’s more of a journey, an experience. Not like a Disney theme ride that is all adrenaline for 60 seconds, this is a lot more intimate, filled with breadth and depth that you don’t get from a 60 second thrill ride or most any other movie you have seen. All in all, ante up for the 3d, you’ll be glad you did.