BRAAP

The Miata is a cool choice, though there is a stigma attached to them when guys wearing comfortable shoes are driving the proverbial bitch-basket, (the original VW Rabbit convertibles coined that phrase that rolled over to the Miata). The Miata is a very capable corner carver for sure... CRX, would be a wonderful FWD toy with some mild torque enhancements, those little 2 seat hatches are a hoot! BMW 3 series. I don’t care if it is E30, E36, E46, etc, one of those with an LS1 and you have an incredible 4 seat performer! If I had to commute in a four seater, an LSx powered 3 series would be on the top of my list!!!! I would even consider the 4 door versions! http://www.vorshlag.com/index.php?cPath=1_4_63

How about one of those old Datsuns? I hear the 240, 260 and 280-Z cars fit that role pretty well as a 2 seater. Not only competitive in Autocross on a national level, but a HOOT to drive on the back roads carving corners, decent fuel mileage with properly tuned EFI, fun, sporty, etc. There is even this incredibly in-depth first rate forum dedicated to extreme performance versions. You might want to ask those guys... 4 seats.. hmmm... Maybe an SR20DET powered 510, though that may exceed the allotted budget...

Cool, one piece billet dry sump oil sumps! Very nice, uber exotic. Thank you for sharing this alternative. As for the engine lasting longer? Not necessarily. A wet sump system can and will keep adequate oil supply and pressure above and beyond what the bearings, cam, lifters require over the life span of the engine, so long as it has access to a supply of oil in the pan, i.e. the pickup doesn’t get uncovered for some reason. Price of the dry sump system has already been noted. Another strike against the dry sump is the need for the dry sump pump itself to be rebuilt on a regular schedule. Over the life span of the engine, dry sump vs wet sump, a dry sump oil system is not known for being a cost effective, or a maintenance free alternative to oiling an engine for a street car. It is uber cool and who doesn’t want race car technology in their street car right? The OE dry sump oiling systems we are starting to see are a more complex approach vs off the shelf SBC/SBF style dry sump oiling systems. As for the rack clearance issue, this only pertains if the firewall is not to be cut. It seems many are assuming that dry sump pans, (because they are shallow across their entire length), is the shallowest and will solve these issues. In the region we need the pan to be shallow, (over the rack itself), it needs to be shallow enough that it is almost touching the spinning crankshaft. Dry sumps are still not shallow enough in that region and will need to be modified. If the firewall is to be cut, then the engine can be set a little higher as it will be set further back, then we are given a bit more leeway in regards to oil pan design and rack clearance. If we are not cutting the firewall, we need to get the spinning crankshaft as low as possible, ideally occupying some of the same space as the rack! An oil pan, regardless if it is wet sump, dry sump, no sump, front sump, rear sump, side sump, all sump, billet sump can not, will not, alter or change time and space in a manner that will allow the crankshaft and rack & pinion to occupy the same space at the same time! That technology is not available yet.... So we need to lower the rack a smidge, but only as little as possible so we are disturbing the suspension geometry as little as possible, and then either build a pan from scratch or modify an existing pan to allow us to get the spinning crankshaft as close to the rack as possible. I’ am currently helping another shop with the design of a scratch built pan just for this conversion, no cutting of the firewall. More details to follow in the real near future. For now, those wanting to DIY it, keep in mind the spinning crankshaft can only be placed “so close” to the rack and that's it! The modifications I mention here and elsewhere puts the crank as close to the rack as it can be, and at that, is probably too close.

If you are wanting to turbo charge, either dual or single turbo, the LSx leaves more room in the engine bay for those parts than the VH does! The VH physically, is a large engine. If you are willing to cut the firewall and trans tunnel entrance, most of the issues of installing the LSx become no more as the firewall is the single biggest fix for those issues. We are working on installing the LSx in the Z-32 without cutting the firewall. Been in contact with an outside source already mentioned elsewhere on this forum about a custom pan, mounts, etc. As we progress, more details will be revealed. Here is another LSX Z-32 conversion in process, lots of pics during the mock up showing the fitment issue areas. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=144469 Either way, LSx or VH, I'm sure you'll enjoy the additional torque.

Sorry if my post and those pictures made it look as though I did the swap. Those pics are not mine, I did not do a VH45DE Z-32 conversion. I did "set" my VH45DE in the engine bay of my Z-32 mock up mule and my findings matched those pictured. I decided on installing an LSx and 6 speed in my Z-32, and sold the VH45DE. (my thread with various engines "set" in the engine bay of the Z-32 including the VH45DE) http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=142025 I feel the oil pan does not need to be cut like that to fit if the cross-member is modified. As for the power steering? Sorry I have no input on that.

Not as much as you would think. It is not a real race car. More like freak show. I was going to say like a Rodeo Clown, but Rodeo clowns are honorable and are a vital part of the sport.

Here's my $.02 on this. 1) I personally don’t see any really big issue between the cross member and oil pan, none that I would consider to be daunting. In fact, of ALL the engines I have stabbed into the engine bay of the Z-32 for mock up purposes, the VH45DE has to be the most natural fit, other than the hood clearance of course. The cross member forward edge needs a bit of a trim to clear the VH45 front sump. It’s not like the other V-8 swap where the rack is the in the way. To convert the VH45DE to dry sump would be a much larger project with more stumbling blocks to overcome than retaining the stock oil pan. The gentleman that took that route I think did so for other reason, not just clearance, race car if I recall. 2) Induction will be a project in of itself, yet a rewarding one. Here is thread dedicated to VH intake and exhaust design; http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=125027 3) … 4) My bone stock ’96 Q-45, (VH45DE was bone stock, from the dirty OE air filter to the stock chrome exhaust tips) put down 242 HP to the wheels on the Dyno at Torque freaks, through the automatic. That is approx 300 crank HP, which falls inline with reports from others, (apparently Infiniti underrated the engine with their claim of only 278 HP). After I removed the VH45DE from my Q ship, I was amazed at how small the collectors were in the exhaust. Measured exactly 1.70” ID, (circled in MAGENTA in the first pic below) With a tubular header with at least 2” collectors, more like 2 ¼” or 2 ½” collectors, that alone should uncork considerably more power! 5) Not sure how much boost it can safely handle with out replacing the internals, (assuming a good safe fuel and ignition tune of course). I would venture to guess that 5 lbs of boost would be safe, so long as you were spot on with your fuel and ignition tune. Oil pan and cross member mods. These 2 pics show slightly modified pan with trimmed cross member. Courtesy NiCO forums This picture shows a cross member with more modification, one that might clear the stock 100% just fine, (This Z-32 now has a turbo LT1 in it) :2thums: Courtesy of DTS.

Happy Birthday sir Woldson.

Calling it “fine” is relative. Yes the valve cover breather alone, all by its ones-ie should be more than adequate ventilation for the crank case, but it is still not ideal. My thought on this is, if there is enough blow-by coming past the rings that the valve cover breather is a restriction causing pressure to build in the crank case, that engine has issues to the point it needs to be removed from service and torn down, i.e. busted rings, hole in piston, collapsed rings, etc. There should never be enough blow by past the rings that the valve cover breather alone would be a restriction to the evacuation of the crank case, to the point pressure would build behind it.

I, as well as many others also agree 100%. The 12 cylinder would most likely bring more friction to the table which would absorb more energy from the combustion events, therefore less of that overall BMEP at the flywheel to accelerate the vehicle. (How much more depends on bore to stroke ratio, bearing diameter and widths, bearing speeds, etc. So many variables that will influence that, I think we should just leave that portion out for now.) In narrowing down the power difference between the 12 cyl vs 10 cylinder, if we left the friction aspect out of the equation, (which is how I interpret the original intent of this thread), the argument is; "A V-12 makes more power than a V-10 because it has more power pulses per complete otto cycle, (720 degrees of crankshaft rotation)." Personally I am not seeing that. And then throw in the frictional aspect and dynamic mass as well, (accelerating more valves, compressing more valve springs, etc), just another nail in the 12 cylinder coffin. So regardless of friction, the arguement was a V-12 makes more power than a comparable displacement V-10.

The above posts were moved here from another thread..

Exactly right. OE, the block breather is plumbed to the PCV valve in the bottom of the intake manifold with vacuum in the manifold, it is drawing air for the crankcase through that valve which is essentially meter air leak. At any rate, it is drawing air from the crank case into the intake manifold, (ever notice the oil residue on the inside of an intake manifold? No you know where it comes from). The tube in the top of the valve cover is plumbed in between the AFM and the throttle body of EFI cars. That is where the air comes from that is being drawn through the PCV system. That air is filter for the intake air filter, and metered for the AFM so the EFI is compensated for the air being ingesting. The factory PCV system is flowing clean filter air from the valve cover down in the cranks case and back into the intake manifold. Keeps the noxious fumes in the crank case down, cleaner oil, yadda yadda yadda. Pretty good system, still being used in that same exact manner on vehicle today. Oil level when full is WELL below the main seals and below the spinning crankshaft which is below the main seals. For learning sake, spinning the crank shaft in oil would add tremendous drag, loss of power. Fill up your bath tub and with your open hand, try to move your hand through the water real fast. Do the same in the air. Imagine your trying to do that at 150+ MPH! Your crank is. I'm sure you have heard the term "Windage" before. IN relation to engine and crank cases, that is the referring to oil and the pinning crank. We try to minimize windage losses as much as possible, freeing up HP lost in spinning the crank through oil splashed about in the crank case. The oil passage that feeds the head/cam is only a small hole, barely larger than the head of a ball point pen! Volume sis, not very much oil actually goes up to the head. The drain back hole in the back of the head is large enough to get your pinky finger wedged in. Not too mention, the front through the timing cover is where most of the oil drain back is any how. At that, the rear hole is large enough on its own that it would never be “filled” with oil, i.e. all the oil that makes it to the head can dribble down through that hole back into the crank case as air is moving back and forth around it, i.e. the oil doesn't plug that drain back. Good point, yes this really is off topic for this thread. Feel free to start another thread and I’ll move the posts of this discussion over there if you’d like, otherwise I will delete these off topics posts later today.

Regarding Edz280zx choice of crank case ventilation, it sounds like you guys saying that he needs to remove the plug are assuming the crank case is sealed off separate from the valve cover, which it is not. Preferably a PCV valved system plumbed into the intake manifold would be nice, (I am a huge proponent of that system), as it keeps the oil cleaner, affords a little better ring seal, main seals are much less likely to leak, etc, but technically, if you don’t use a PCV system, (which many guys don’t), his arrangement with the core plug in the crank breather is fine. He has a valve cover breather and the crank case is NOT sealed from the valve cover, i.e. they communicate air, (pressure and flow), up through the timing chain cover AND the oil drain back hole in the back of the head/block. In short, if he had a breather tube/filter on the crank case vent as well as the valve cover, the pressures in the crankcase and valve cover would be no different than they are now, i.e. he is not building any more pressure in the cranks case with just the valve cover breather alone. If the valve cover breather was not large enough to allow crank case pressure from blow by to escape and the crank case was building pressure, adding another breather vent doesn’t’ fix the “Real” problem, which would be too much blow by!

I’m waving the BS flag. Number of firing pulses “alone” per full otto cycle, does not equate to more power! I wont get into the friction aspect, we'll just assume that is equal. A 12 cylinder has more pulses per cycle vs a 10 cylinder, yes, but, and this is a huge butt, each pulse has less energy due to each of those pulses coming from less displacement. For a “given BMEP”, regardless of the number cylinders 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, or 12 cylinders, all having the same overall displacement, all at the same RPM, all will generate the same power! The more cylinders the engine has, the smoother that power is being transferred to the crank/wheels, none the less, overall power at the end of each otto cycle will still be the same. Now if that same BMEP is being made at higher RPMs, more horse power will be made, which the 12 cylinder variant may very well be capable of due to its shorter stroke, if piston speed is the limiting factor of RPM. Also, if that 12 cylinder has some inherent natural supercharging effect that the 8 and 10 cylinder variants don’t have, then the 12 cylinder will have more BMEP, hence more power.

1) More available RPM due to shorter stroke, for given displacement, all else being equal, = more power, (covered!) 2) Depending on available real-estate in the chamber roof, more overall valve area = more air flow, (sort of covered, falls under the "more valves" post) 3) Induction and/or exhaust pulse tuning/scavenging attributes of the V-12 allowing more "natural supercharging" effect, =more power

What about NISSAN? I have heard it pronounced Nihss-sann, though mostly in the Pacific northwest we hear it pronounced neice-sahn...

That's funny. Not once in any Datsun/Nissan ad or on any Z car emblem/badge, have I ever seen/heard the letters "ed" after the letter Z... darn furriners, eh... or is it "aye"?

You're welcome.

Anyone have a spoon for this one? I used all mine up already.

Welcome to HybridZ. Between the 2 engines you listed, it really depends on your personal perception. They both fit the car. In my not so humble opinion, It boils down which engine do you prefer and which power train fits your budget, i.e do you already have access to one or the other etc?! Outside of that, #4 in this link sums it up best http://forums.hybridz.org/announcement.php?f=135&a=2 Don’t forget #11, and… ah heck, all of them are a good read for new and long time members alike.

Thanks for sharing and welcome to HybridZ. Your project sounds INCREDIBLE! Hope you stick with it and bring it to fruitition. Your goals look to be VERY realistic, even a bit conservative. The VH is an excellent V-8 foundation. It wasn't easy for me to sell my VH45DE. Again welcome to HybridZ, Paul

Hoping the timing with my project and the SIKKY LSx Z-32 project coincides enough that the info I provided them thus far regarding dimensions will result in a dedicated custom LSx Z-32 pan. One they would ultimately manufacture and offer for their LSx Z-32 conversion kit.

I wouldn’t mind starting a separate thread on this, possibly getting as in-depth with it as this single plane crank thread?! For what its worth, 180 degree headers on V-8 has been done in an S-30 260-Z before. Here is the info; http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=123057 Here is simple SBC 180 degree header design. Inner 2 cylinders of one bank merge with the outer 2 cylinder of the other bank, and vice versa; Pros & Cons of 180 degree headers vs a single plane crank as I see them; 180 degree headers; PROS; 1) Obviously the different sound. Closer to exact equal length primaries, the closer to the Ferrari tone you’ll get. 2) Cost. Will be less costly than a single plane crank. 3) The benefits of a dual plane crank, (no 2nd order harmonics, as much displacement as you want) with the different exhaust note. 4) If done nicely, the primaries can be a down-right sexy bundle of snakes. 5) Exhaust tuning. You now have evenly spaced pulse meeting up in the collectors and all cylinders are sharing the same benefits from scavenging, not some more than others. This may be worth 10hp +/- on a 400 HP engine. 6) You’ll also want a 180 degree intake, (dual plane intakes ARE 180 intakes). Key is equal length runners to the common plenum/s so the induction tone matches the exhaust tone in crispness. (Many due not realize how much of an engines sound is the induction!) CONS; 1) Complexity in design, manufacturing, and installation of such an exhaust system, (application dependant). 2) Will have more primary tube surface area radiating that much more exhaust heat into engine bay. 3) To get that crisp clear “braaaaaaap” tone will require exactly equal length tubes, see #1 above in CONS. 4) Have not found one set of 180 degree headers that “exactly” duplicated the high pitched exhaust note a single plane crank would duplicate, though they can be close. Everyone’s idea of “close enough” is different. My best guess is due to the much longer primary lengths to get the 180 degree headers to converge evenly is the reason for the “deeper” tone (they must converge at the same distance away from the valve, remember sound travels at a constant speed, the speed of sound). 5) In some vehicles, space constraints. 6) Weight of additional primary tubing. Single plane crank; PROS; 1) The sound is automatic with equal length short primary headers. 2) WOW factor, definitely different. CONS; 1) COST! 2) Complexity of custom one crank and cam. 3) 2nd order harmonics! I did some YouTube searching with mixed results. On one bank of domestic V-8, the firing pulses “meet up” unevenly as each on emerges with the next, hence the rough uneven tone. Then, even though all the exhaust pulses are eventually joined up down stream, the rough rumpity of the uneven firing pulses has been established “after” any merges in primacy pipes. i.e. it is the point at which specific primary pipes merge and the length of those pipes between the valve and collector that is key to the rumpity dual plane vs crisp smooth 180 degree tone. (in my phone conversation with David Vizard, we discussed an 8-1 header That he has built and tested. Sound was crisp, Ferrari-esque. He said it sounded like screaming Honda Sport bike, but the domestic V-8 did not like the all into one collector from a performance standpoint. Torque took a major hit. He agreed that 180 headers in a 8-2-1 design would not offer such a loss in torque production and retain at least most of the exhaust note). In my sound tone research of 180 degree headers, mostly, they get the sound part way there, but still just don’t “get it exactly” as a single plane crank and standard issue equal length headers would, ala-Ferrari. I did find a few videos, Pantera in particular, that mimic the sound pretty closely, one car in particular in 3 of the videos could probably pass as 180 degree crank V-8, though in the start up video, to me it sounds like any other dual plane V-8. I have found others with 180 degree headers that still sounded just like a typical domestic V-8 with just barely a slight hint of crispness in the exhaust tone. My theory on that has to do with speed of sound and pipe length between the exhaust valve and merging points of the pipes. If the primary pipes of a 180 degree could all be “exactly” equal length, merging into a common collector the same distance ways, (no merging of pairs or ahead), and with the speed of sound being a constant, the pulses should all meet up with the same amount of space/time in between them giving that smoooooth crisp tone we here in the Ferraris. Now if some of the pipes are a little longer, that sound pulse wont meet up with the rest till a smidge bit later causing an uneven ba-bump… ba-bump…ba-bump.. tone. Most of the 180 degree headers as used on the old Ford GT40’s are pretty close to equal length, most don’t appear to be exact. The typical Pantera 180 degree headers are more unequal in length. At any rate, one particular Pantera I found running BMW V-8, (dual plane crank, custom exhaust), does have almost the exact crisp BRAAAAP tone when it is driving. In the last video you can see the end of the exhaust, though it was hard to see. In a another video of some racing pantera’s, their notes was real close, with just hint of coarseness. Here are the videos I found… Here is the exhaust of same car. Hard to make out the design/layout… Idle is ROUGH, but it sure screams in the other videos. Two other Panterras, 180 degree headers. Sound pretty nice… This Corvette I’m pretty certain is running 180 degree headers. Sounds pretty good.. Close enough that I would settle for that vs building single plane crank… http://www.guerragroup.com/TV_creative_files/383__NO_traction.mpeg This Vette with 180 degree headers is different. In the parking lot it sounds just ho hum. Later on during the drive by, oh-yeah! This ’60 GT-40 sound pretty good… This modern Ford GT with 180 degree headers sounds pretty good, tough when it revs, doesn’t sound like it is hitting 10,000 RPM like a single plane V-8 does at 5000 RPM Another Pantera with 180 degree headers, unequal length, somewhat crisp sounding, though higher RPMS doesn’t sound as high as other single plane V-8 or other 180 degree headers V-8’s. Something else that comes to mind. That is pitch. Pitch being the how high RPM sound vs what they actually are! Ferrari sound like they are revving 16,000 RPM even though they are only revving to 8500 RPM. Length of the over all exhaust stem from the exhaust valve to the exhaust tip has an effect on the “pitch” of the exhaust note as well as the length of the primaries from the valve to the merge collector. This video shows that rather well. Ferrari being mid engine, have pretty short exhaust systems compared to front engine cars. Unless it is side exit. I also did some a it of head scratching on cheese ball simple header design where only on pipe from each bank cross to the other side, depending on pipe lengths, could get the sound we are after. Could probably be done with standard set of long tube headers, need to find some poor soul wiling to try it...

Not much to update. Starter and starter bolts arrived. The 0968 Vette cam arrived and is ready to install in the engine. I have a small suspicion that I may not see the LS6 cam. Paid for it, haven’t heard squat diddly since. I have his address…. I’ll give him aa couple more weeks. The LSx T-56 should be here today or tomorrow? Ordered OE MLS head gaskets, head bolts, intake mani gaskets, TB gasket, new Vette water pump, and billet fuel rails for the LS1 intake. Pulled the heads and disassembled them, Jet washed and blasted as well. Will be porting them and 4-5 angle valve job in the next couple weeks. Also Jet washed ALL of my LSx oil pans. The ’01 truck pan, 2000 Vette Bat-Wing pan, F-bod pan and my recently acquired GTO pan. When I removed the failed lifter and cam, I took a few pictures, made some notes and started a cam failure analysis thread; http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iii-internal-engine/1075148-cam-lobe-failure-analyses.html Better get back to my Honey-do list. Till the next update….

Saw your update on the T-5 trans! That is very good news, thanks for the update on that. Been watching your build thread with enthusiasm. I sort a looked into the Z-32 5 speed then decided against it. Now that you bring it up again, I might just look into it a little deeper, if for no other reason than to see if it is a viable option for others to pursue, i.e. if it is just an adapter plate, getting the Z-32 flywheel modified to attach to the LSx crank, etc. This may be a worthwhile solution for some as it would eliminate the need to deal with shifter placement issues, custom drive-line, speedo drive, etc.