BRAAP

Dan man... Yes sirree, I would agree.

That is your doing? :lmao: Googling for Darth Vader pics I stumbled across this link below with your pic and story; http://kidologist.com/category/humor/

WAY COOL!

I found member, Slow_Old_Car. Is that him?

Kiwi, I am not entirely sure, but that would be my guess as well.

... And reverse?

It has arrived! A few quick pics;

Not many of those '78 280-ZX models, the S13030.

Made a batch last-night. My first ever attempt at jelly and/or canning anything never, huge mess. My batch took on a different appearance than Johns. My middle daughter laughed and said it was root ball. All the chunks would float in the mix and took that set as it cooled. None the less, it is GOOD! Opened the first jar this morning, mixed it well so the chunks of bell, habenero, and shreds of carrot were equally dispersed, Mmmm mmmm... Polished off a 1/4 pint jar today already! I used the exact qty's the recipe called out for, not quite as hot as MONGO's. Next batch will be more habeneros and using the food processor to finely chop/prepare the carrot and peppers instead of a knife!

Touché.

Happy Birthday sir Daeron.

One other point I wanted to bring up that other Z owners have also noticed is, just prior to the engine temp reaching normal, that is when the car felt the strongest power wise. Granted, can't trust the butt dyno, but every L-6 Z car I have owned I noticed this. On the initial start in the morning, just before the temp temp needle reached mid way point, the car felt stronger than it did when at full operating temp, that was also another reason I ran as cold a thermostat as I could find, trying to replicate that. Would be interesting to learn what the current wisdom is regarding coolant temps. My thought is that whatever the current wisdom is probably applies to the modern engines which might not carry over to the old L-series due to it's overall coolant flow design, coolant passage surface area surrounding the available heated surfaces, etc... The hotter thermostat should not warm the engine up any faster than a cold thermostat. They are both closed when cold, the colder thermostat just opens at lower temp than the higher thermostat. Rate of engine warm up is another topic. The OEM designs the engine and its cooling system to get the engine to full operating temp as soon as possible, mainly for emissions reasons, and also for passenger comfort reason in colder climates, etc, My knee jerk reaction to that concept from a machinist/engine builder standpoint is quickly heating the engine up, (that heat emanating from the combustion chambers and radiating outward from there), would put more thermal stresses on the engine being as it is made out of more than a few different materials and even different alloys of a particular type of metal that expand and contract at differing rates and amounts, i.e. aluminum will not only conduct heat quicker than iron, but also grows more, i.e. aluminum pistons in iron bores, etc., (one of many reasons why we were taught not to hammer on a cold engine, including cold oil doesn’t flow as freely to the bearings/valve train, etc), on the other side of the fence, modern engines are wearing far less than their older design counterparts, mostly due to more precise control of the fueling, none the less, modern engines seem to going longer before requiring an overhaul. Though I would still be hesitant in trying make changes to the cooling system of the L-series to make it warm up quicker. Modern engines are designed with the quicker warm up in mind, the L-series was designed around how quickly it currently warms up. Those design parameters might be different, then again, might not. I think I am starting to get too far off topic here. My apologies for the tangents guys.

Very nice, car looks fantastic, good work! Love the color Red on the s30.

I have always ran the 160 F thermostats in my L-series engines and even my performance Small Blocks. I have no proof or theory to support that as the way to more power other than I remember reading Smokey Yunicks work from years gone by and recall he said that cold water and hot oil always made the most power, so I followed that advice and applied to my engines. In the case of the detonation sensitive L-series, they seem to be more tolerant of fuel quality, and ignition advance when they are colder vs hotter, for that reason I would lean toward running a colder thermostat. (Sort of follows along my theory of the coolant flow not being adequate in the head so cooler coolant in the head should help to reduce detonation?) As an aside, in the late '80' and through the mid nineties, (maybe even still today with OBD-II?) privateers were finding that running colder thermostats in their factory EFI cars of the time was allowing the engine to run colder which forced the ECU to run a little richer and in the case where ignition was also controlled, the ECU ran a more aggressive ignition timing as well, which showed up as more power i.e. fuel and spark maps for normal operating temp was emissions based and very conservative during the OBD-I era, and forcing the engine to run colder would allow the ECU to run slightly more aggressive maps. Not sure what this bit about late '80 EFI cars has to do with this topic as we already have control over the fuel and spark timing, just thought I'd throw it out there. Sorry for the tangent, I get gabby after a beer..... or two.

Good question Ron. It has been my experience that too tight is worse than being too loose. General main thrust clearances range between .003”-.013”. .005-.007” has always been a good safe range for the SBC and L-series. Be sure to always verify acceptable thrust clearance range for the particular engine you're building. Being too loose just allows the oil that much rome opportunity to flow out more freely on the non loaded side thrust side though it is debatable if it has an ill effect once the thrust clearance is greater then .008” or so. Rod bearing clearances on the cranks pin that is fed from the thrust main will have an affect on how much oil goes to the thrust as well. For what it’s worth, the owner of the shop I worked at during the mid to late ‘90’s always had me clearance the Jet Boat V-8’s thrust to the loose side. I am trying to remember exactly why that was, but don’t recall it other than it had something to do with how the impeller could load the thrust bearing as the boat hull/transom flexed under full power/jumping gravel bars, etc. (1100+ HP Twin Turbo Big Block Jet boat that runs UP rivers at 125+ MPH!) Here is a good read on thrust bearing failures, written by the AERA; http://www.4secondsflat.com/Thrust_bearing_failures.html It would be nice to hear other input/insight on ideal minimum and maximum thrust clearances from the other engine builders here?

I can't say for sure this is true, but I do feel that the knock from the advanced timing is limiting your power gains past 35 degrees. If the knock could be subsided to allow a little more timing advance, I think there is a little more power left o the table. At 35 degrees already, probably not much more left, but possibly enough to be measurable, probably not enough to feel.

Would that happen to be World Class T5 for a GM V-8? If it is, I'll build you custom automotive related TP holder in exchange..

Yes, crank thrust or end play as it sometimes called, is often overlooked when assembling an engine and I have found just as Doc found, approx 10-20% of the time with domestic V-8’s, the thrust is too tight. Riding on Docs coat tail, I want to elaborate a little more on checking and setting the crank thrust. I use this process for every build I do, V-8, L-series, etc. Crank thrust, what is it and why is it so important? With most manual transmissions and all automatic transmissions, there is force being applied on the back of the crank, pushing it forward. When you push on the clutch pedal, all that force is pushing against the crank thrust bearing. With heavy clutches, you don’t want to hold the clutch in for extended periods with the engine running, not only because it is wear on the throw out bearing and little wearing the clutch, but because it will cause excessive thrust wear! Automatics torque converter is always pushing against the crank. If the thrust is improperly set on and automatic, the thrust will wear to the point the crank moves far enough forward the crank cheeks will contact the block main webs, making loud knocking sound, similar to rod knock. Seen a few examples of that come through our shop from DIY garage builds where the assembler didn’t verify adequate cranks thrust. Why do you need to “set” the thrust when measuring thrust clearance, and during final assembly? We do so to make sure that both halves of the thrust bearing are flush on the side of the thrust bearing that sees most of the thrust loads. For most engines, that load is pushing against the rear of the crank, (trying to push the crank out through the front of the engine). Some applications such as late model manual trans LT1, that load is opposite, pulling on the crank, covered a little further down. When assembling during the mock up, thrust should be checked dry, no lube. Install the mains, crank and caps, snug down the thrust main, not tight, just barely snug. Now you need to “set” the trust. Using a dead blow hammer, (NOT a metal faced hammer), strike the crank on the snout driving it rearward, then again on the flywheel flange driving it forward this time, but a little harder in this direction as that is the direction of thrust loads on the running engine, (the exception is discussed at the bottom)! Some will use a screw driver to so this, I prefer the dead blow as it is a more positive setting technique. Now tighten down the thrust main cap. With dial indicator against the crank snout or crank cheek to take thrust measurements, use a flat blade screw driver between a crank cheek and main cap/web and “lightly-carefully” pry the crank back and forth. If there is thrust clearance it will make an audible thunk thunk sound as the crank seats against the thrust bearing moving back and forth. take note of the dial indicator reading at each extreme, that measurement is your thrust clearance. When doing this, be very careful not to touch the crank journals with the screw driver, they are soft and mar easily. If the thrust clearance is not adequate, remove the thrust bearings and just as Doc did, remove material from the thrust face. My preference is to only remove material from the side of the thrust bearing that doesn’t see any thrust loading so as to leave the manufacturers coating on the face that does see thrust loads. One technique is to use a fine file to remove the material, another is flat stones, my personal favorites are Doc's approach using a flat surface such as glass and fine sand paper measuring as you go or a milling machine. I’ve used all the above having had to add clearance many a domestic V-8 thrust back in the day. Just be sure to take your time paying close attention to the pressure you are applying so as to remove material equally around the circumference, measuring as you go. As I mentioned earlier, some manual trans such as the later model T-56 for the LT1 have a pull style clutch, as such when you push on the clutch pedal, the clutch is being pulled on so when setting the thrust on an LT1 using a pull style clutch arrangement, make your last hit while setting the crank against the snout setting the thrust halves, and if material needs to be removed from the thrust bearing, remove it from the back side of the thrust bearing.

Good point Jim regarding piston weights. The Flat top KB Hyper-Eutectic pistons for the 327 on a 6” rod is 485 grams, (gives 9.7:1 C/R with a 64 CC chamber, Vortec heads), the JE's that could fit in the 380’s-424 grams is 13+% lighter, enough to warrant a closer look for sure. If I can get past my mental block of using forged slugs in a “mild” street application, (looser clearances with the cold start up rattle and added ring wear from piston rock while cold). To the mild level I currently intend to build this, the RPM and power levels are such that decent cast pistons would survive. Budget will dictate the level of crazy this build will take on. (Plans could easily change depending on what parts become available that will tolerate regular blasts to higher RPMs, i.e. 7.5k, 8k, 8.5k... ).

Ditto what Bryan said! It is not uncommon for one or more of those 8mm threads to strip when installing the cam towers. Yeup, 12 ft/lbs is the spec and no need to creep up on it so long as the towers are fully seated against the head when you start torquing. If they are cocked/not seated, remove the tower and be sure there is no debris under the tower, both dowels in each tower are either in the head or the tower and not cocked, and try again. Lightly tap the tap of the tower with soft faced, (hard plastic or small dead blow) hammer.

Yeah, You're right. So a little more researching revealed the 4” bore with this stroke has the the most options for pistons with 6” and 6.125” rod lengths. I don’t want to go with anything shorter than 6.00” and off the shelf aftermarket 6” small journal rods are readily available and affordable. 6.125" in small journal aren't so available "off the shelf". As JimConnor mentioned regarding compression height, quick calculations revealed ideal compression heights for the various rod lengths. Crank C/L to deck height of 9.025, ½ of stroke=1.620” Comp heights for the following rod lengths; 5.94” = 1.465” (L99 rod) 6” = 1.405” 6.098” = 1.307” (LS1 rod) 6.125” = 1.280” (Decking the block can remove as much as .030”, compression heights can be as much .030” shorter than listed above). For the most part, with this stroke being only .010” shorter than the 327, using a 327 piston for a given rod will only leave the piston .005” deeper in the bore at TDC, not an issue. KB154 or KB155 piston on a 6” rod is looking pretty good. Also found pistons for SBC 350, 383 and couple of Ford pistons that would also work. Since the mains are also small journal, Clevite M-1110-H main bearings allow small journal cranks to be used in medium journal blocks. I’ll be talking with Ron Iskendarian next week, as well as Lunati and Comp regarding cams, price and availability for flat tappet, retrofit roller, and roller cam for the later OE roller blocks. Ideally I want to go roller, we’ll see. KB154 courtesy of United Engine and Machine Co KB155 courtesy of United Engine and Machine Co

Great news! Thank you for the update.

That would be much appreciated, thank you.

Starting to research possible con-rod options. Not worrying to much about piston options yet, haven't settled on a block yet, (leaning towards 4.00" bore, possibly a roller block). This crank has small journal crank pins, (2.00”). I’m not ruling out the option of turning the crank pins smaller to fit a particular rod B/E, (Big End), or machining the width of the rod B/E narrower to fit if they are too wide. I know custom rods can be had in the exact dimensions I desire, though I’d like to at least research the possibility of using a production con-rod. Yes this is the cheap way out and I do not have a money tree growing in my pasture. My preference is to use as long a rod as possible to reduce the 2nd order harmonic as much as possible. OE Chev rods would probably be the most ideal and make the most sense, they already fit. The L99 4.3L V-8 of the ’94-’97 Caprice have a 5.94” long rod, would need to acquire a bearing shell that fits the large journal rod on a small journal crank. Here is what I found thus far; SBC, (2.00”/50.8mm and 2.10”/53.34mm B/E dia, .927"/23.55mm S/E dia.) 5.70”, (144.78mm) 5.94” (150.88mm) (L99 264 CID GEN-II V-8, ’94-’97 Caprice, 2.10” B/E diameter) 6.0” (152.4mm) aftermarket LSx (2.100”/53.34mm B/E dia, .927"/23.55mm S/E dia.) 5.3, 5.7, 6.0 and 6.2L rod length of 6.098” (154.89mm) 4.8 = 6.276” (159.41mm) LS7 = 6.067” (154.10mm) (VERY expensive!) Datsun L-series OE long rods, B/E diameter 1.9675”, (50mm) S/E .827”, (21mm) can be safely opened up to .866” (22mm). L20B, Z22 5.750” (145.9mm) Z20 6.00” (152.45mm) Nissan Honda Toyota BMW Volvo Mercedes Ford Mopar ???

Here's mine, quoted from this thread; http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=154591 Here's another thread, same topic; http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=137027 Hope that helps, Paul