Mike C

I consider the larger aftermarket sway bars to be mandatory. If you don't expect to spend any real track time, the coil over are not neccessarry IMO. I would not spend any $ on 15" wheels and tires. The 16's on my car is the best thing I ever did for driveability. They are 205 55 16 and are the same height as stock which really takes the edge of sharp bumps, keeps the speedo accurate as well. They fit without any rubbing on 16x7 zero offset wheels. IMO, the 225 50 15 is too short at 1 full inch less than the 205 55 16 (24.2 vs. 25.2). If you have to have the extra width, the 225 50 16 is 25.2" high as well. I really like the fit on the 205's however. Wheels were $159 each from Summit and the tires were D60 HR closeouts from the tire rack at $58 each. Total package with lugs, mounting and balancing was less than $1000. That is what I would put the extra money towards rather than coilovers. I went to the 16's from 205 60 14's at 23.7" tall and HIGHLY recommend the taller tire to say the least. I have Suspension Techniques springs that were $139 for the set of 4 from Summit and the ST front and rear bars that were $229. The jury is out on the KYB gas-a-just as the damping is a bit firm on washboard type surfaces, but at $50 each, hard to argue too much. Total package for my car was around $1500 wheels, tires, springs, bars, AND strut cartridges! Summit can get most parts, just don't mess around with the catalog, call and talk to a rep. Everything was special order but their prices were excellent in comparison to MSA. ($100 less per wheel!)

No. I ran one that way on my last 240 for 7 years. However, if you don't disconnect the coil when doing a compression check, you will cook it then. As usual, learned this the hard way...

I have now They say on th eweb that all of their cams have their full name on them. I searched for part#'s also, and no luck. Thanks for the tip, though.

The blue springs are usually NISMO springs. I wouldn't change springs at first, but would get new struts and add urethane bump stops that go around the strut shaft inside the spring.

There was one on eBay last night ~$400 and reserve not met. I would consider a good rebuildable one worth about $750 with original big valve heads and the steel crank. It is my opinion that unless you just miss the boat with the port volume of your heads (putting a set of 230cc heads on a 305ci motor), the power curve should remain almost identical to what it was with a poorer flowing set of heads but output should be higher everywhere with more overrev on top. In all of my experiences, low and mid-range torque were increased with larger valves and better flowing heads. Now remember, this is with a moderate performance cam, meaning over 210 degrees at .050 and not a truck cam where peak power is 4000 rpm. This was confirmed in the CHP cylinder head tests when the 215 Dart Pro Actions had the second highest torque production below 4000rpm, only about 2-3 ft lbs off of the 170cc Darts. The myth that square port BBC heads had poor low end throttle response was squashed by a mag that swapped to a little cam. There conclusion was that it wasn't the heads that were responsible for the lousy low speed performance but the fact that all of the square port head motors came with MONSTER camshafts. Duh, I say.

I wonder what kind of oil filter that older Ford cop cars had? Since the Z motor uses the Ford filter, a sandwich adapter and the copcar cooler could be used quite easily.

I'm not sure. Before I order it I will measure between my frame rails and get an OD on the Griffin. I will go absolutely as big as I can.

What year is your 2.8? If it is a flat top motor, I would get an N42 donor head and do it in a hearbeat! If it is a dish piston motor, I still think I would do it. Using your 240 head so you can keep the square port 240 exhaust manifold. I think the 240 rods are a different length than the 280 rods and are not interchangeable.

The Bimmer motor is cool, but the cost of a donor is absurd. You could get a 2.8l motor from a 328 and hop it up, but just can't compare to the power per dollar of a SBC. I have considered the new trailblazer/envoy all aluminum 4.2L DOHC 6 @ 275hp as a swap candidate. I'm sure quite a few soccer mom's will be putting them on their lids this winter...

Nice to see we were able to sway Pete... IMO, the double pumper produces more torque at low engine speeds at the tires. If it was my money, I would run a Holley Classic 750 double pumper. A 650 or 700 would probably make as much power, but the 750 is the carb of choice to modify and if you ever need more is the place to start. I ran a 700dp on my 355 for a number of years, and when it started having flooding problems (either a warped metering block or main body) I stepped up to a Barry Grant Stage III 750. (Removed choke tower, polished venturis, 4 corner idle, milled throttle shafts, 1040 cfm.) This was pre Demon days and about $650. My car was no faster. At all. But it did idle better and start REALLY easy, so I obviously didn't need the added airflow. Since they max flow through the existing venturi, throttle response is not degraded even though flow capability increases dramatically. Bottom line, is I would buy the 750 classic DP and hook the choke up, jetting and tuning to match your combination. I like having a choke on a car that gets driven quite a bit.

Got a used LT1 hydraulic roller from a buddy. Supposed to be a Crane. I had no luck on their website, so maybe somebody else can decipher? (Checked Comp out as well, no luck.) Engraved on the end of the cam, 3108 3110 HR113 CC F7399

I agree with all of the science presented, but also recognize that it doesn't always translate into more power since the entire package has to be analyzed. ie if max flow and efficiency of ones cylinder heads is in the .700 lift range and you have a camshaft of .480 lift, this is definitely not the best use of said product. This is especially true on a street driven vehicle tht has to contend with a less than ideal exhaust system which can negate many of the advantages of said cylinder head. Another factor I forgot to mention earlier is that smaller combustion chambers have less surface area exposed to the initial heat of combustion. This keeps more heat in the chamber to do work meaning more power and less loss to the cooling system. The 292 turbo head is an antique these days, but was GMs early attempt at a more modern chamber and plug location, but in reality, even after modification, they aren't much, if any, better than the 041,186/492 series heads. I guess the whole point of posting earlier was to try and suggest that horsepower isn't always made by spending more money, but by better decisions and craftsmanship, I think too much time is spent on $ upmanship and not enough time on engineering the combination of parts.

Pete, David Vizards Ported 186 castings (identical to my 492s for all intents and purposes) flow 280+ cfm on the intake and have 81% of that on the exhaust almost exactly the same as the AFRs. My heads were ported by a local machinist and are really pretty. They also have 1.437 springs with Manley undercut stainless 2.02/1.6 valves, titanium retainers and 10 degree cc superlocks. With such small cam timing I don't see any way that the AFR could make 60 hp more. Actually it could conceivably happen,I guess, but I am NOT going to spend $1500 to find out(I would have to upgrade springs) on this motor. My flat top 355 is going into my 'vette and will be replaced by a more radical 355 for my Camaro. It WILL get aftermarket heads. The Pro Toplines have excellent numbers and with the new setup I won't be concerned about driveability as I was when my old motor was built.I will probably pony up for the fully ported Dart Pro1 (320cfm intake 240cfm exhaust) $2400 with roller springs fully assembled. Although the Edelbrock Victor Jr has gotten my attention lately. A box stock set on my friends 427 SBC made 540hp and 580 lb ft. This motor is going into his hybrid, a 93 S10 extended cab.

I do agree with them being miles ahead of STOCK 60's heads, I don't agree after reading (and re-reading) Vizards book for years that they are much better than fully modified GM heads. No doubt the newer chambers are miles ahead of the 60's chambers, but airflow from the GM heads can come close to the AFRs. The trend in OEM chambers is to closed and I also believe that is still the way to go using two valve relief flat top pistons. If you have to pay somebody to port your heads you are WAY ahead buying something like the AFRs or the Victor Jr heads, but if you have a set of GM heads, can do reasonable port work yourself, and then get them rebuilt that is still a viable option to reasonable power output. I have had thought about upgrading the ported 492s on my 355. It puts (a guesstimate) about 370 hp to the wheels. Reasonable since the 3300# car plus my 180# butt runs 12.7's at 110mph. It is a TINY comp street roller (236 @ .050 .560 gross lift I run the lash a little tight .020/.020 so .540 net) and 9.8:1 trough type flat tops. If I thought I could swap heads and get 70-100 horsepower I would do it tomorrow, but I highly doubt it is the conclusion I have come to. Too many cars I see running with a similar combo to mine can't put that kind of power out. FWIW, the motor went in my car in 1988. It was a seriously fast street car at the time. It isn't any slower time wise, but mid 12's on street tires don't mean dick anymore. PS if anybody wants to loan me a set of AFR 195's to experiment with, just let me know! Maybe I should just drop it in the Z since the speed/hp calculator shows a #1000 weight reduction would be a 10.90 at 125...

I REALLY, REALLY feel your pain. My Dad was my best bud and most vocal supporter. He died from metastisized colon cancer in 2000. He was 63. Never got to enjoy his retirement nor did he get to be a grandfather. It has been the single most defining event in my life. My thoughts are with you and your father and my wish is for a speedy recovery.

Do the Mikunis use the same setup as the Webbers? I know my Del'Lortos do. At least the 40mm ones. I just couldn't stomach the price and used a 3" stainless elbow connected to a K&N cylinder filter in front of the radiator. I am planning on building an aluminum air box that bolts to the three carbs then connecting it to the filter. I figure in the end I'll have about $150 in it, which is the same as the 3 individual filters, but won't feel quite as taken as I do with the $50 each price tag.

The backlash MAY slightly change, but bearings are machined to such precisicion that worse case it returns the gears to OEM locataion. I would not hesitate to change the bearings and reinstall with the same shim setup it had in it. Actually, I have done this quite a few times with no problems. Not in a Z diff, but in many hypoid rear axle assemblies. If it came from a NA6 powered car, it probably doesn't need an R&R. If it was in a v8 car and someone did unitrack burnouts, powerbrakes, etc. It's problems won't be bearings but excessive clearance in the spider and side gears if not outright failure of them. Nothing is worse for a non LSD diff than one wheel burnouts.

In 68 and 69 the 302, 327 and 350 could have all had the same block casting #. Only way to know for sure is to measure the stroke or get the casting number off the crank. The counterweight on the bellhousing flange is a little different on each displacement, but you really need 1 of each side by side to compare. Accessory holes in the head suggest it is a 69 or later engine. Date codes can confirm. Also, on the front "pad" of the cylinder block where it protrudes from under the pass side cylinder head there should be a code stamped in the block. That 2 digit (or if 70 or later 3 digit) code should be able to tell you what engine it is and what type of vehicle it was originally installed in. I have a 4 bolt main 327 in my Jimmy using a 69 large journal crank and a 72 350 truck block, so it could be that whatever the number is on the block doesn't neccessarrily correspond anymore. So you are back to the measuring...

You didn't say what year your car was, but the 70-72 cars have a different style trans mount. It doesn't protrude as to the same degree as the 73+, but is MUCH harder to remove.

According to David Vizaed's "How to build and modify small block chevy cylinder heads" all thing being equal the closed chamber head is worth 20 hp on a SBC, even if you equalize compression. BBC the opposite is true. The 11:1 327 in the 1960's had either a .125 or .225" dome and they used closed chamber heads. It wasn't until 1971 that open chamber heads existed, so all of the 60's high compression motors (283,302,327 and 350) used domed pistons and closed chamber heads. Unless there is something incompatible with AFR's combustion chamber design then you should be able to use dome pistons and closed chamber heads. In a closed chamber head the spark has a shorter distance to travel and reasonable compression numbers can be had with flat top pistons. The flat top design doesn't impede the flame front as much as the dome piston and IMO is the way to go. I usually consider AFR to be knowledgeable, but after that info I would consider somebody else...

Couple of problems I forsee. The Scirocco rad was designed for a daily driven 1.8l motor. It works fine in a dragster but is too small for a street car IMO. The other is that the inlet and outlet are both on the same side. Makes it kind of hard to run hoses. I would go for the same rad the V8 guys use, the Griffin 22x19. That's what I'm planning for my L28 and when I do go V8 I won't have to buy another one!

Torque loads for transmissions are based on max load the trans could stand for a 24hr period and I don't know what gear that is tested in. This has nothing really to do with driving. I don't know ANYONE who broke a T5 because of "too much torque" but because of shock loading. Rev it up and dump the clutch, viscious wheel hop, etc. Old saginaws were the same way. FWIW, the WC T5 and the early GM T5 have the same gear ratio, but the WC has a higher torque rating because of the materials upgrade to the gears and bearings. The T5 is an excellent trans for a street car that sees moderately hard acceleration on typical "street" type tires. They will hold up quite well if you get an aftermarket shifter, shift using the clutch, and NO clutch dumps especially in a light car. The gearzone.net steel bearing retainer helps a bunch also on the WC trans with the tapered countershaft bearings, and I would be tempted to put it in ANY T5 I had apart.

We have talked about this several times. Check out www.Gearzone.net and this thread http://www.hybridz.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001101 which talks about the differences. In a nutshell, World class trans have 2.95 first gear, Nissan has 3.5. Requires changing input shaft and cluster gear. You cannot get a Nissan input for the 2.95 first gear. WC trans uses paper cone synchros and has bearings on speed gears. Non WC uses brass synchros and bushed speed gears. Gear alloy is different/stronger in WC trans but once again, to take advantage of this you will need to swap all of the gears. It might be that the WC GM or Ford input could be shortened and resplined to the Nissan setup then you could use the guts from a WC trans with the Nissan case and bellhousing. Actually, the rear of the Nissan case takes the Ford shifter so it may be the same front part of the case in which case if you get a Ford WC T5 and a custom modified input shaft it bolts right to the Nissan bellhousing? Anybody have both a Ford a Nissan T5? I have a Nissan and 3 GM's, but the GM is quite a bit different using a different shifter and the case is rotated 15 degrees relative to the bellhousing.

That makes more sense. That way the engineers were taking advantage of the wicking effect of the cable and using trans fluid to continuously lube the cable. Good idea.

What's the science there Scottie? I assume that the clamping force is transferred to the fine thread portion of the stud and nut leaving more clearance between the threads in the block than if you use the stock bolts? I can see where the problem comes from but would like to know why studs make it more likely? Maybe because GM uses sealer on the bolts originally and when studs are put in people forget? What is the likelihood of someone replacing a head gasket with OEM fasteners and having a leak then? I know the Buicks are notorious for blown head gaskets when you turn the boost up, but that is much better than the bent con rods in the Sy/Ty motors when you do same!