Drax240z

The 260z you see in my signature... bought it 1.5 years ago for $500, driven it daily since. Sure things go wrong, but I abuse it at times. (and take it to the track some too) Maybe over the last 1.5 years I've put another $350 into it total. When I'm done school I'll give it some more lovin' though.

Depends on the M3... but that would be my choice. Older (late 80's, early 90's) Bimmers aren't bad to work on at all, and seemed robust in my experiences.

You'll notice the reply didn't come until almost 11pm my time... Got out of bed at 4:30pm. Man I hurt!

Well in my opinion, you aren't gaining a thing. The engine will produce slightly more power than a L28, due to a better head design (crossflow) and slightly more displacement. The L28 is allready bulletproof in my opinion, so I doubt you'd gain at all on that front. Personally, I wouldn't think it was worth the trouble of doing a swap just to gain 200cc displacement, and a crossflow head. Take a look at some of the hot L28 setups, or 3.0L strokers being made based on the L28. Dan Baldwin is producing 235rwhp with his 3.0L? stoker. It may not sound like a lot, but I'd bet if you spent 30 seconds in the passanger seat of his Z you'd be convinced!

Aux, I don't think mid-rear lift oversteer would be the result in this case, in a straight line. Not in an MR2 anyway. At least as far as I saw there was no turn there. Dunno what the deal is though, he looked pretty half-assed on the brakes.

Oops, how did I miss this? Thanks for the bump Davy. My webpage has been offline for ages, but I still have the .html file that contains the FAQ. Honestly, I think I should give it an update, but I'll put it up on the web again... OK, it is now available at: http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/turbobuild.html I'll see about giving it an update sometime soon.

Great car... but the colour... yik.

I had a 9/72 titled as a 73... I thought the changeover was 9, but I'm not sure.

Jaime, I really don't think the SU's are the weak link for producing power on a nearly stock engine. Yeah if ou are running a really radical cam and headers etc. it might be worth looking into, but I believe norm got in to the 12's on stock bodied SU's with some needle and other mods. If my memory serves me, he didn't pick up much (if anything) from going to a bigger bore SU except for better fuel economy. Overcarbing an engine is usually a worse demon to deal with than undercarbing an engine. I just think you'll be spending time and money for very minimal results, but that isn't to say it can't be done! And if you want to try it out and give us your impressions, then all the power to ya.

scott_d if you put the 280z springs in your 240z it will not be lowered as the 240z springs would allow. Assuming that your 240z weighs 2400lbs (1200f/1200r) stock, and a 280z weighs 2800lbs (1400f/1400r)... this means that with 280z springs in a 240z your 240z will sit 2.06" higher in the front, and 0.29" higher in the rear than it would with the 240z tokico lowering springs. You could always just cut a coil or two off however. Some might balk at doing that to a new spring.

70-73 240z 74 260z 75-78 280z 79-83 280zx 81-83 280zx turbo Thats how it goes... Welcome though!

Search the archives in this forum, I believe Scottie-GNZ posted some stuff about SDS starting points over a year ago.

Z-rific. I understand where the "only" comes from when talking about 750hp F1 engines, hell its not hard to build a SBC to that number with a bit of power adding. (Nos, turbo, super, what have you) But for comparison, BMW F1 is arguably prodcuing somewhere around 850rwhp @ 19,050rpm. To break this down: - 10 cylinders - 3000cc displacement limit - FIA limits cars to no less than 600kg Some interesting figures at max rpm: - 158 ignitions per second for each cylinder - one ignition every six thousandth of a second - Number of combustions during an average GP: 8 million - Number of litres of air aspirated in 1 second at top speed: 450 (or 953.5cfm) - Weight: less than 100kg Thats 283bhp/L for this engine. That would be equivalent to a chev 350 with 1614bhp, or a Viper V10 producing 2266.6bhp... without the aid of forced induction, Nos, or anything else but "old fashioned" engineering. If a F1 car could hook up at the drag strip (but it is limited to a maximum tire size by the FIA) it should be capable of a 7.9sec @ 190mph 1/4.... On an aside, F1 cars in the early to mid eighties were producing over 1400rwhp with turbos. Someone in the FIA decided that was a somewhat dangerous number for a 1.5L (90cubic inch) engine...

What type of radius on the donut? 1"? And what flavour of jelly in the middle?

Norm when you say "1" stub stack" what do you mean exactly? A 1" tall air horn, with full radius on the inlet? Drawings, pictures, etc. if you have them.

Now that sounds like a much better explanation of the benefits of air horns! On my 260z I have just the "flat plate" for a airbox back. I'll see if I can track down one with the stock air horns on there, and do a seat of my pants comparison.

I insulated houses for a living for a while, just remember a hot shower after makes all the difference. (at least thats what they say to the rookies) Seriously though, do you have any pics up at all Mike? Sounds like a great place.

Bob, have you any data/personal experience at achieving 150% VE on a naturally aspirated setup? Seems REALLY high to me, and it surprises me a great deal to hear that number associated with a 30 year old design. (for example the jaguar D-type with extra long intake runners was in the 105%-108% area) From all I know, VE is a comparison between the air burnt during combusion, to the displacement of the cylinder itself. ie: if a 467cc cylinder consumes 450cc of air from the atmosphere (drawn at atmospheric pressure) that would be a VE of 450/466 or 96.4%. A 150% VE would mean 700cc of 101KPa air, compressed and crammed into a 467cc cylinder in the case of a L28... without the aid of forced induction. Someone please tell me if my concept of volumetric efficiency is incorrect!

From what I know of biology (very little, granted) osmosis is the passage of water through a membrane, not aluminum. If this is true, there is no way it could be osmosis of the (aluminum) fins through the (iron) membrane. I think this is much better explained by a theory of random teleportations and dislocations of matter, into other solid matter. Bushido, tear it down and be sure. These engines are pretty stout, so likely you won't be too far behind anyway. They also aren't that hard to come by, so don't fret it its messed up.

Nice looking setup 240hoke. I drilled the magnet holes myself too, its really not to bad. Measure 18.5 times, drill once. (or three times, depending how you look at it) After seeing 240hoke's setup I think I might change mine.

I just used some 1/8" flat bar, and bolted it into the air conditioner bracket bosses cast into the engine block.

1.298L 9,800rpm 173rwhp That's my comment on lightweight engines.

Ah, but remember there are 3 (or was it 4?) E88 heads out there. Some good, some bad. I like Bob's suggested combination to be honest. Its been proven to work really well.

Please quit now while you are ahead! "Shadetree" octane additives can be detrimental to your engines health. Be wary. Higher octane will not raise boost levels. A BOV and a POV are not the same thing at all. A BOV does not perform the same function, and by adding a BOV you aren't necessarily replacing the POV. Raising octane simply raises the fuels resistance to burning. This can help prevent detonation and preignition. It isn't going to give you more power (without other modifications), better economy, or anything else. However, if you add laquer thinner, transmission fluid, and diesel fuel to your gasoline, who knows what you are doing. My advice, run the highest octane gas you can find, tune the car for that, and stay away from an unpredictable witches brew. The car will be fast.

Oh yeah dude, your money will go FOREVER here.