BRAAP

Gollum, Thank you for your input. With regards to modifying main bearing width, or even diameters for that matter, the amount of effort involved for essentially no gain in the realm we are working within, isn’t justified. It is my opinion that to acquire that exoticness in modifying bearings to that degree, we may as well just start with a more modern power plant from the get go such as the VH45DE or 1uZ. Due the SBC and SBF’s block main web, we really can’t narrow the main bearing any more than the OE SBC/SBF main bearing without also narrowing the main “saddle” and depending on the casting, a portion of the web itself. That process would require a great deal of time, energy etc, and really only serve to weaken the main web. Narrower main bearing would also mean higher unit loading, i.e. less bearing area to distribute the load pressure over, so force for given square area would be greatly increased. Now a smaller diameter main bearing to reduce “bearing speeds" for a given RPM I have initially thought about that, but in the end, decided even that was taking it too far away from the goal of keeping with the SBC/SBF simplicity. The OE SBC/SBF bearing size is more than adequate and functional. Here are a few pictures of SBF and SBC crank case. SBC 4 bolt main SBF Windsor block, (Not the 289/302) The 2nd order harmonic is a factor that we should not overlook, though regarding to keeping the crank “in” the block, I feel pretty confident we shouldn't have any issue, mainly because we aren't building a torque monster here. Keep in mind, the 2nd order harmonic is directly related to the mass of the pistons, amount of stroke AND the rod to stroke ratio. At one end of the spectrum, if you have an infinite rod length, the 2nd order harmonic does not exist, regardless of the piston mass and crank stroke. So the longer the rod to stroke ratio, the less the 2nd order harmonic. In my phone conversation with David Vizard, we discussed this topic and he told me that rod to stroke ratios of 2.2:1 or greater, the 2nd order harmonic reduction will be incremental, i.e. hitting the point of diminishing returns. To go from 1.5:1 to 1.7:1 would have a significant reduction in 2nd order harmonics, though to go from 2.5:1 to 2.7:1 would have much less of an impact not to mention the 2nd order harmonic is already much less at this longer rod to stroke ratio. Point of diminishing returns he says is around 2.2:1+. So a short stroke and long rod, the 2nd order harmonic is greatly reduced. Think stroke in the 2.5-2.75” region, with as long a rod as can be had with a tight ring pack, (piston pin as far up the piston as possible without being in the oil ring.) As you pointed out the 2nd order forces are vertical in relation to the pistons, up & down. 4 cylinder engines have been production since the dawn of the internal combustion engine, more than a few have been big displacement, more than a few have been mega high revvers, 10,000+ RPM, all on 2 bolt main caps, that are no more beefy than the OE SBC/SBF main caps. Only VERY recently have manufactures begun to employ 4 or 6 bolt mains. These 4 and 6 bolt main 4 cylinders also have all 5 main caps as one piece integral with the removable lower skirt of the block. That design didn’t come about because 4 cylinder engines have been spitting the cranks out the bottom of the engine, though strength is one of the reasons for the design. We usually see 4 cylinder engines spit rods out the side of the block LONG before we see a crank spit out the bottom. Here are couple 4 cylinders with typical 2 bolt main caps, much like the SBC and SBF. SR20DE 2 bolt block, (as a v-8 would be 4.0L) 3 liter GM 4 cylinder 2 bolt, (as a v-8 would be a 6.0L) One benefit I feel the the V-8 main caps design has over the typical 4 cylinder is how those 2nd order harmonics are acting directly on the bolts. On the V-8, the bolts are vertical in the block, the pistons travel up and down 45 degrees to those bolts, so the 2nd order is also putting those bolts in shear, pushing sideways on the cap. The main cap "registers" will be absorbing those forces relieving the bolts of some of those forces. If need be, we could employ the SBC splayed 4 bolt caps, though due to the mildness of this project, I don't feel it is necessary. Front view of SBC block, (GMPP Rocket block) SBC 4 bolt main It is the cost and simplicity, ease, overwhelming availability of alternative parts, etc. that has me gravitating towards to the SBC, not to mention, the ease of the project and if there is any issue, alternative parts are available, including the block itself! As I already covered, due to the mildness of this project, I honestly don’t feel the main bolt count is an issue. I do feel the OE Ford 302 block with its uber thin main webs is an issue though, not its 2 bolt caps. With a 1.5-1 ¾” stroke in the 302, with uber long rods giving us say 3:1+ rod to stroke ratio, the production 302 blocks would most likely hold up just fine. With the VH45DE or 1UZ options, if not for the sake of building this myself, It’s is just a matter of dollars. Pay to have the custom crank manufactured, the custom cams, then build custom intake and exhaust, and you’re done. Haven’t done any compression ratio calcs for the new stroke option. For N/A I would like to see in the 9-10:1 range. If it's less, that is just an excuse to bolt on the Eaton M-112 I have sitting on the shelf.. As for the HP and strength. Keep in mind, torque will be function of the displacement, (small displacement, small over all torque), HP is that torque with RPM. It is already known the SBC can safely handle 500-600 ft lbs of torque on the stock bottom end. At 214 CID, optimistic 1.2:1 lbs of torque-to-displacement ratio is only 256 ft lbs. Now if I can get that 256 ft/lbs of torque to happen at 5252 RPM, that would be 256 HP. If I can get that same torque at a higher RPM, the HP will be more, but still with only 256lbs of torque induced stress! Now if the block main web can tolerate the harmonics, amplitude/frequency that will be produced at those elevated rpms?....

COZY Z COLE’s little sweetheart. Larry can be found washing, buffing, waxing and buffing her again, sometimes as much as twice a week! He calls her “BT #1”! Rumor has it this B.T. is "Bolt On" enhanced including fluid filled engine mounts.

Thank you veterans and those currently serving to keep the peace here at home. Parroting what naviathan stated, your choice to put your life on the line for this great country so that it may continue to prosper is greatly appreciated and we all owe you great debt of gratitude. Thank you.

DavyZ is a dedicated athlete. He views and treats his own body as a temple, works out religiously, rides every clear day. Here is Davy on his Hybrid… He still hasn’t answered the question if that is a wheely-bar under his arse… I understand braking is a “balancing act”

Owner of this incredible extreme performance forum, SuperDan, His current Hybrid pictured below shows his true colors with a rough, tough and ready to rumble exterior... Rumor has it, it's Ford powered!

John Coffey Beta testing the shop "mule"

Ron Tyler piloting his latest Short-AirBus A-3

We've all seen Docs, (Red Snapper), race car... Just thought you all would like to see his Daily Driver..

I don't think Therapy is gonna help after this...

Yasin, WOWZERS! Very nice, and very tight… Looks good. Plenty of O2 bung ports, one for the Wide band, one for the Narrow band and one for the…. Tall or Short band right?

YES! I agree, after-market EMS offers so much more flexibility, control, and precision over the OE EFI, it is almost a no brainer. Don't forget, the after-market EMS allows essentially unlimited growth with your project, with cams, intake manifold designs and styles, power adders such as Turbos, Nitrous, blowers, alternative fuels, E-85, etc. After-market EMS allows you to tune without compromise to WOT performance or cruise mileage. The OE EFI is HUGE compromise. The more mods done, the larger the compromise. Also of valuable note. The OE EFI does NOT play well with aftermarket cams AT ALL! Being able to get rid of the AFM from the air stream allows all sorts of freedom in induction routing and removes that restriction from he air stream. Again, aftermarket EMS opens the doors to further power AND mileage gains over what the OE S-30 EFI could ever hope to offer. As to which aftermarket EMS to choose? Depends on many factors. I threw together this quick and dirty EMS primer. Don’t take it verbatim as it is chocked full of my own personal opinions which may not fall inline with your goals and intents, though there should be enough info and links to EMS resources to form your own educated decision on what would best work for you and your application. Here is a listing of the stand alone EMS's… Click ME for the listing of after-market EMS and the links to those manufactures Also, search through the different EMS sections here on HybridZ. Here is my not so humble opinion on a few of the systems. Megasquirt; Low entry cost, very research intensive regarding figuring it out and setting up a lap top and also somewhat sensitive to EMF, so long as you follow tried and tested procedures to reduce the chances of EMF interference, it works fine. Again, MS requires not much money on initial investment compared to the other stand alones, but you must possess a savvy grasp on PC software, (not just knowing how to turn the computer on and surf the web, much deeper PC geek configuration stuff, or at least the desire to want to learn), and also the patience, time, AND ability to SEARCH and RESEARCH many forums, not just HybridZ, but the other Mega Squirt dedicated forums. SDS; A bit more costly than Mega Squirt, probably the simplest in terms of it overall architecture compared to the other available EMS's, not as many fine tuning options as the other stand alones, but its simplicity and over all excellent functionality make it an excellent choice, even for full tilt dedicated race cars. WOLF 3d; in my opinion, the Wolf 3d is one of the better bang for the buck standalone systems with all it is options, controllability, map blending, resolution, number of supported cylinders for distributor-less ignition, etc. Covers everything from stock engines to full tilt Turbo AND Nitrous fed, staged sequential fuel injected, distributor less ignition, V-8’s and everything in between. I ran Megasquirt on my L-28 last year, bought Wolf 3d for my next V-8Z project. Currently running Wolf 3D “Direct Fit” in my ’93 Z-32 and LOVE IT! Saving up for another WOLF-3d System because I like its flexibility, user friendliness and overall functionality “that much!” Sure it cost approx 1/4-1/2 as much more than a MS system, but in my not so humble opinion, that extra cost more than covers the headaches endured tinkering/configuring Megasquirt up to the point of start up, for us mere mortals with mild to moderate PC savvy. Again, that is just my personal opinion. AEM, Haltech, Electromotive; all are well known powerful stand alone EFI systems and each has their strengths, and are all good systems. Have fun and good luck.

PUUUURFECT!!!! Tail has somewhat of a Porshce-esque style, nose resembles some of the aggressive Honda/Acura offerings. LOVE IT!

Old school baby, All seat of the pants. Tuned the AFM, played with water temp sensor resistance, and lots of miles and gas. Looking back with what I know now, I’ll NEVER go through that much effort tuning again! If I had an O-2 sensor and a Dyno, could’ve gotten it to that point in much less time. As for the head, within your goals, don’t get all wrapped in splitting hairs. It is totally realistic with a simple stock combination whether it is with early dished piston bottom end with N-42 or N-47 head, or later flat top piston bottom end with the P-79 or P90 head to achieve. If you have the time and desire to “tune” it can and has been done. I’ve been able to get comparable results from both combinations within the range you are looking for. If you are wanting more, then juggling heads, pistons, aftermarket cams, aftermarket induction etc is going to add lots of money to the project for a little to moderately more overall horsepower, AND a loss in drivability and mileage. It all boils down “tuning”. Mine and Johns car are examples of what time and persistence can achieve with less than ideal parts, stock smog cams, stock sub 9:1 compression ratios, etc… Good luck, Paul

Yes, the JTR hood latch mod is for dizzy clearance. No dizzy?! Then you can retain the OE latch.

Typical dual plane intake manifolds for domestic V-8’s are 180 degree intakes, just like 180 degree headers. Pairing up the two middle centers of one bank with the two outer cylinders of the other bank. At WOT, those 4bbl carbed dual intakes do sound smooth, if you can hear it over the exhaust that is. This is a cut and paste with a few edits from an Email I sent to someone else recently interested in this topic. This was regarding 180 degree headers and why they don't sound exactly the same as a 180 degree crank. I have found where they can be close, but still not 100% the same. Please keep in mind, this is my very loose hypothetical theory. I do not have anything concrete to back it up.

Great link. Thanks. Push button wipers... Hmmm... Version of todays "mist" control.. Not a bad idea for an occasional windshield wipe without having to twist, then untwist...

Its all good. I just couldn't let that opportunity to rib you go by...

My example is similar to Johns, a little more mileage, (I wasn't towing a trailer though), little less performance. Never measured the engine on dyno, guesstimated it between 185-210 crank HP. ’75 280-Z, daily driver, ASP autocrosser, (back when Z cars were in A Street Prepared). 2800 lbs with driver and half tank gas. Recorded 28 MPG several times over the years measured down I-5 using mile posts holding between 60-65 MPH, (I don’t trust Z odometers). 0-60 mph in 5.7 seconds, ¼ mile in 14.4 @ 97 MPH. Engine; Mostly stock L-28. ’77 N-47 head, ported myself. Stock N-42 dished piston bottom end. Stock ’77 cam. Stock ’75 EFI. 6-2 Header, true dual 1 ¾” exhaust, no balance pipe. Stock ignition with Jacobs Wires and coil, recurved mech advance. Several years fidgeting with the stock '75 EFI. Drive train; Stock open 3.54 R-200 diff, ’77 5 speed trans, stock flywheel lightened myself. 195 60HR 14” tires. The car then received a mild SBC 350 in ’97, weighed in at 2950 lbs with driver and half tank, Trans was a W/C T-5 5 speed, welded 3.9 ratio R-200, (way wrong final ratio, 1st gear was useless). Mileage dropped to a best of 20 MPG, trade off was that it ran consistent 0-60 in 4.2 seconds, ¼ mile in 12.3 @ 113 MPH. Never measured HP either, guesstimated to be 320-350 crank HP.

The steel heat shield was used since day one. Injector fan introduced on the ZX in '79. Yes, your assessment of heat transfer in aluminum is accurate, but the foil is not really a fair comparison regarding our intake manifolds. I’ll keep try and keep this simple. Thickness of the aluminum AND its surface area are the factors we are interested in, (Delta T, or temp differential, is also part of this but for our examples, it is constant). The Quantity of aluminum determines how "much" heat it can hold. Its surface area tells us how "fast" it can absorb and release that heat at a given temp differential, (Delta T). How much and how fast. The more aluminum you have, the more heat it can absorb and hold. The more surface area that volume of aluminum has, the “faster” it can absorb and release that heat. Foil is at one end of this spectrum being very little in quantity, but with a lot of surface area. It gets hot and cold FAST! Now picture a solid block of aluminum, same volume of material but block form, not a sheet. A lot of quantity with not as much surface area as the foil, (surface area to volume ratio). This block will take much longer to fully absorb that heat and much longer to release that same heat, in the same environments. Our intake manifolds have a much greater volume to surface area ratio compared to foil. The area under our intakes is quite hot on a running engine. Hotter than we want our intake manifolds to be. The non webbed manifolds will absorb so much heat, the rest passes through, between the runners. Webbed manifolds absorb approx as much heat into/though the runners as the non webbed, but the webs are not allowing the heat to just pass through without absorbing it first, then the webbing rejects some of that heat off the top, (Delta T, or difference in temperature between the two surfaces), the rest of that web absorbed heat goes into the runners and plenum with the cooler air inside. Add to this, the manifold cannot “transfer” this quantity of heat "through” the webbing as fast as that heat could just rise up through the between the open runners of the non webbed, we are now trapping some of that heat under the manifold, allowing the manifold more time to absorb that heat trapped under it, and is probably hotter. This is where it gets sticky. The air our engines ingest passes "through" this now hot intake manifold. This air that is feeding the engine we have gone to great lengths to make sure is cold and dense with our super-whiz-bang cold air intakes, now is absorbing the heat out of the manifold that it absorbed from the exhaust! The air that actually enters the cylinder is not as cold as we prefer or thought it was... Think drag racers icing their intake manifolds! This is the only real disadvantage to non cross flow head designs having the intake and exhaust entry/exit on the same side of the head. The intake is generally over/above the hot exhaust. Now if we can keep the heat for getting into the manifold all together, … That is whole other topic, ceramic coatings, heat barrier manifold gasket, heat shields wrapped with header wrap and those shields totally separating the engine bay into upper lower/cold and hot decks, with ducting, fans, etc… Again, a topic for another discussion, not this thread.

The pretty pictures are cool and all, but the text is also useful. Post #6, this thread... Clicky the link.... hint hint... .

For you guys guessing about the BCDD, you do have a Haynes manual or other shop manual for your cars right? Being members of the internets highest performance Z car forum, we hope that you have been through it a time or six by now. This highly technical performance forum is not a replacement for a shop manual, so if you don’t hove one, you best ought to get one… The Boost Controlled Deceleration Device, (B.C.D.D. for short) is covered in the Haynes manual! I'm feeling generous today, so instead of reminding you guys about the search feature, (BCDD/exhaust popping has been covered ad nauseam), I'll give you a quick course on the BCDD. Come time, I expect you'll remember this gift and reciprocate... In short, yes, removing the BCDD can and will often times lead to popping in the exhaust system during deceleration! The BCDD is a valve that opens when you drop the throttle at higher than idle RPM, it allows air to bypass the throttle for emissions, leaning out the mixture. ALL EFI Z cars from ’75-’83 had this nifty little device. Early cars it is on the bottom of the Throttle body, later ZX’s it is on the bottom of the manifold itself. With BCDD functioning, you will notice your RPMs are LAZY to fall when you let off the throttle. Sometimes will hang around 1300-2200 RPM or so then eventually fall to a normal idle. "Dat dar be da BCDD vahv axue-aden". With the BCDD removed AND the ports plugged, your RPMs will drop MUCH quicker. Down side to this, (some prefer it so it would be an up side for some, especially if you have a free flowing exhaust system), is popping in the exhaust while decelerating due the now richer mixture. If the popping is mild, it isn’t hurting anything. If the TPS is set per OE, the ECU acknowledging idle/closed throttle, then during decel from high RPM, you wont hear anything in the exhaust but then at exactly 2800 RPM, you will here a distinct pop or lots of popping as the RPMs continue to fall, or at least slight change in the exhaust note. This is because the ECU shuts off the injectors above 3200 RPM when the throttle is closed, then turns them back on at 2800 RPM. Some of you have found this out on your own if you have pressure washed your engine and inadvertently filled the TPS switch with water. This shorts the idle circuit in the TPS connector, and is a VIOLENT rev limiter, 3200-2800 RPM! This episode is actually quite embarrassing when played out as you leave the public pressure wash station, your fancy dancy eye catching sports car is bucking violently down the road. (Don't ask how learned about that 20+ years ago. OMG, it's been that long?!?! ) If you set your TPS so the idle switch does not activate, you might hear the popping at all RPMs while decelerating. Hope that helps clear up the function of the BCDD. Paul

A dog leg shifter just might work. Looked in that myself while mocking up the SBC T-56 Z-32 project. Dropped that project in favor of the VH45DE conversion bolted up the Z-32 5 speed, i.e. no cutting the firewall and I need a home for the VH45DE out of my ’96 Q-45 donor car. Here is pic of a SBC sitting in the engine bay of my Z-32 V-8 mock up mule. With bell housing lined up flush to the firewall, (oil pan sitting ON the rack, crank centerline is approx 1 ½” higher than then VG30DE), firewall HAS to be cut to get the bell housing to fit, and the T-56 shifter is 2” forward of the stock location. Not sure if the LSx T-56 shifter to bell housing dimensions are much if any different. Ron Tyler built a dog leg shifter for a T-56 shifter relocate a while back, (that shifter is somewhere in the shop currently), If memory serves, it was a 4” offset.

The block, front cover, valve cover, crank damper, even the head, (except the region directly surrounding the exhaust ports) will hold up to rattle can paint just fine. Take care, Paul

Very nicely done. Those fender edge arches are suspiciously similar to the ‘87-‘89 Z-31 fender archs…

Installed the same S-2000 start button in my 240-Z race car. Wired it as the link above shows to control a relay for the starter and also the through glow light. Kept the button when I sold the race car.