BRAAP

This debate still drones on, and has not been definitively tested and measured as to which style, (webbed vs non webbed), offers what benefits over the other under what conditions and for what applications. I am pretty sure the webbing was not intended to protect the fuel rail from heat so much as to help contain/manage exhaust heat in general and may have been done in an effort to help in the manufacturing/casting of the manifold itself, or the webbing was an effort to reduce the likelihood of engine fire from leaking fuel injectors, i.e. wont dribble directly down onto the hot exhaust manifold, instead puddle up on top of the intake? (The last one may be a bit of a stretch… ) The webbing does help keep exhaust heat from radiating up above the intake, but the aluminum is also a heat sink, and that webbing will absorb that exhaust heat that now corralled under the intake, i.e. hotter intake manifold overall. Personally I prefer the non webbed for aesthetic reasons and that it wont trap as much heat under itself, therefore absorbing that heat into the manifold, and ultimately raising IAT. Others will say other wise for their reasons and that is fine. Until we see some hard data from back to back testing with temp sensors around the engine bay recording temps of the intake manifold, fuel, IAT's etc, under varying conditions, environments, engine loads, road speeds etc, we are mostly theorizing. Some have some IAT data, but nothing that is a direct back to back comparison.

Something doesn’t add up here!

This should help clarify which Z's did and did not have EGR. ALL '75-'78 280-Z's destined for CA had EGR. ALL '77-'78 280-Z's destined for all states in the US had EGR. Only '75-'76 Federal cars, (non CA), were the NON EGR N-42 intakes. The only difference functionally, one would be concerned with regarding swapping intakes, is if they need EGR for emission reasons. Out side of that, functionally ALL the OE EFI intakes, '75-'83 are interchangeable.

You do realize this forum is dedicated to extreme performance Datsun/Nissan Z cars right? Off topic discussion is allowed, (discussion of vehicles other than Z cars), but tech topics not related are better suited to forums specific to the subject, drag racing 4x4 trucks/Bronco's in this case. Turbo charged Ford V-8 engines, excellent topic of discussion on this forum as it can apply to Z cars and we would encourage that discussion, though please try to keep the portions pertaining specifically to the Bronco/4x4 to a minimum. Good luck with your, 4x4 drag race…

3rd party apps have been available for the iPhone legitimately since the 3g was released! http://www.apple.com/webapps/ I personlly have 56 third party apps for my iPhone 3g, and it is not jailbroke! (iPhone is a successful gadget, barely mediocre as a phone.) Cool, didn't think about that. Are any other hand held/PDA's using this for MS currently?

Hmmm... Sounds like you are essentially describing a 8 into 1 header. Mr Vizard did discuss that with me as well. Yes, 8 into 1 will produce the sound and Mr Vizard has first hand experience with 8 into 1 exhaust with the SBC V-8 and tested it to some degree. Mr Vizard made it clear that the dual plane crank V-8 does not like 8 into 1 exhaust taking a serious hit in torque, everywhere! Traditional 4-2 and 4-2-1 as well as 180 Degree headers of the 4-2 and 4-2-1 design will work on dual plane crank V-8's.

I would think with the iPhones WiFi and Blue tooth, it could communicate, but then you'd need your lap top connected to the MS controller any way. Though during road tuning, the iPhone would be more convenient than the lap top due to its small size. Then it would just be a matter of writing the code. Possibly have control of fuel and ignition maps, and few other key parameters... Hmmm......

I thought I recently saw something about iPhone and MS somewhere... It may have been in one of the those acceleration/automotive apps in iTunes, or something along the lines of making calculations for mega tune input?... I'll dig around and see if I can find that...

Sorry, as an iPhone user, I just couldn’t resist… :lmao:

I’m sure many of the aftermarket performance modules would be just fine from MSD, Pertronix, ACCEL, D.U.I., Mallory, etc. This HEI article refers to matching the module to the coil; http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/67498_hei_coils_modules/index.html This article discusses improving the HEI. (Another great HEI article...) http://www.automedia.com/HEI_Ignition_Upgrade/pht20021001he/1 Courtesy of ChevyHighPerformance. Hope that helps..

This ride is true to RAT ROD form, complete with many advances in “frugal rodding”, soda can overflow, old school SBC with road oilier crank case breather… The headers are sah-weeet.... LOVE IT!

I'm assuming carbonated, Holley, Edelborck, Carter, etc? When it is running rough at idle, have you tried to readjust the idle mixture to clear it up? If so and it does not clear up, then Ignition Module comes to mind, especially being heat related. Are you running HEI? If HEI, don't skimp on the ignition module, get a quality one and be sure to install it per the instructions. Most use a grease/lube for heat transfer to the dizzy base which helps tremendously in the longevity of the ignition module. Fuel wise, intermittent issues such as this are typical of particles floating around in the float bowls not allowing the float needle to seat or partially clogging the jets. Hope that helps, Paul

That entire post covers and clears up so many other threads. The last two paragraphs are an excellent summation for those in the process of designing/building their high performance sports car. Thank you John for sharing and if you talk to Mark, be sure to extend thanks to him as well.

Yeup! Definitely GM! Pretty much only works with GM ECU. Not sure if the Mega Squirt boys have been able to crack it and use it with MS. Electromotive and SDS use the same/similar coils, not sure how they separate them from the "board" they are attached to..

It does nothing till it sees the missing tooth. Without a missing tooth, it has no reference on "when" to start sparking.

Doc, (aka "The RED SNAPPER"), running 9.8 @ 132 during SEZ... 21.4 WHP!...

Alrighty….. Did some more research regarding the exact exhaust note/tone I’m trying to achieve. Found these motivational speakers offering their testimony on the subject… This is a 2 minute speech on why I need to this... Here is another motivational speaker same family of speakers, probably his brother? He only needs 47 seconds to convey his message… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ZCp1pw4So 49 seconds of pure heaven... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASdYH7uLN4Y

The change of mind came about by the ability to meet my intended goal with a single plane crank without exceeding 8000 RPM, so why not build as much stroke as 7500-8000 RPM will handle using over the counter engine internals, i.e. more displacement vs my original deign, i.e. more torque! I’m not going to get into much of the details of our discussion as of yet. Will have a dedicated post later on, (maybe weeks, or a month or six).

Like this?

Just a quick update. I was able to get in touch with the world renowned engine builder, Mr. David Vizard, he read through this thread and we spent just over an hour and a half on the phone. WOW, very enlightening conversation as he shared his knowledge and his experience regarding this topic and fueled my desire to continue on with this project! (love the English accent). After talking to Mr. Vizard, a few changes will most likely come about such as stroke, less RPM. Cam lobe specs are NOT an issue! A few other small details were discussed, all of which I will post about later. In short, this project is realistic and still on my mind, 351freak is also on track for a Ford version. 351freak, you did receive my E-mail 2 weeks ago?

Who is 47 today, John or Jerry? Happy 47th birthday.

Happy 44th birthday Ken.

Wait a tic… You guys are starting to misconstrue what was said regarding the 75 HP. He didn’t say that roller rockers would “free-up” 50-75 HP, he said that is how much power it takes merely to operate the stock valve train at 5000 RPM! If the roller rocker cam was ground so that it mimics the OE valve lift curve, It might free up 10% of the power used to operate the valve train due to less friction. Lets give it 20% for the benefit of the doubt. That calculates to 15 HP reclaimed to the flywheel. I recall hearing about a dedicated dyno test, Small block V-8. Flat tappet vs Roller cam how much power does the flat tappet absorb vs the roller tappets, everything else being identical. Roller tappets freed up on the order of 10-15 HP. A SBC has 16 valves vs the Datsun 12, at that, my 20% figure above looks a bit optimistic.