Drax240z

I had to scan one article out of racecar engineering for my FSAE team, so since i had it scanned I figured I'd put it up for you guys to take a gander at, so you can decide if its your 'cup of tea' or not. 5 pages. http://members.home.net/drax77/Ackermann1.jpg http://members.home.net/drax77/Ackermann2.jpg http://members.home.net/drax77/Ackermann3.jpg http://members.home.net/drax77/Ackermann4.jpg http://members.home.net/drax77/Ackermann5.jpg [ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: Drax240z ]

Great news Tom! I hope to be writing a similar post really soon myself. How did you find the SDS install? I am about 1/2 way through the install. Have any troubles getting it started up? Looking forwards to hearing what you get at the track for a baseline.

Actually Davy, cones at 50km/h aren't that bad. Back in high school we used to do drive-by pickups, collect them, then drop as many as we could at speed in an intersection just to watch peoples surprise.

Check out Alsil's page on the ford swap, he's done a pretty good job of documenting everything! Slowly but surely there is a growing number of these swaps happening. An attractive swap to say the least!

Oh yeah, now everyone found my secret. (racecar engineering) Its a great magazine.

quote I can't say I really know Norms car that well, but as far as I know its his daily driver as well. From the article posted on zdriver.com a few months ago it sounds like its not bad on the street! Remember though his times are due to slicks and 6000rpm launches at the track. Not really the kind of thing you do on the street. 82 turbo engine has a stock torque peak of 200ft-lbs at 2800rpm. Unfortunately I haven't driven one yet. I would like to think that in a 2400lbs car that would be sufficient.... But more torque is just a twist away.

Awesome stuff John. I'm impressed that you managed to accomplish as much as you did on so little sleep! Nice to hear some before/after comparisons on the strut sectioning. Do you have any pictures from the weekend?

I'd agree that 400hp out of an L series isn't a bolt on affair, or isn't if you have any notions of longevity. Forged pistons are pretty much a must at that point. The torque peak of the 82 280zx turbo engine stock is 2800rpm, which is pretty reasonable for the street IMHO. Pete brings up a good point about character, and drivability. Some like peaky engines, some don't. (I'm one of the former, BTW) It all comes down to what you want out of the car, and how hard you want to work to get the most out of the car. (row those oars!) Moving on to Norm's 2.9L. Proof that the sub par dyno results we've seen from the 3.0L's are truely sub par. If Norm can turn out 12.88 with a 2.9L NA and a lot of tuning, we do get a glimpse at the potential of a 3.0L NA if set up correctly.

Ah, good point lone. I'm seriously thinking that when the time (and money) comes I will be going viscous LSD. But unless you have an engine that likes to cruise at 3000-3500 I can see why you wouldn't want that. James if you see this, can you estimate what your VLSD swap would cost to duplicate?

Just out of curiosity, how come more people haven't checked out 240Z Turbo's VLSD swap? Seems like he's put a lot of power through it with no hiccups.

Graham, did you get that turbo engine home then? Musta been a heck of a ride doubling it on your bike!

Ross brings up some good points regarding budget. A 400hp car will likely need more money spent on brakes/suspension/driveline than a 250hp car will. Turnaround time is another issue. I'm sure you could have your old engine yanked and the 3.0 in the car in a day. I wouldn't expect such speed doing the JTR swap. (though likely it'll take you less than 11 years... *nudge pete*) It really comes down to what you want out of the car. Either engine will give you a very quick car. One will produce high rpm torque, one will produce lower rpm torque.

I burned out my bushings with a torch, then slit the metal outer with a hacksaw, and 'peeled' it out of the hole. Its not something I'd pay to have someone else do. Nothing hard about it except not to gag on the smell of burning rubber.

Follow the links in my signature... its a start. There are a bunch more links at the end of the tech article.

From what I've read on CFD software, its really best used to confirm and tweak wind tunnel results, as opposed to standing alone. A company called Advantage CFD is getting really close to having a setup that will work on its own though. Advantage is a Reynard offshoot. Doesn't do us a whole lot of good though, considering the computer that they test on has 16Gb of RAM. Not much chance of getting one of those to take home.

Heh Al, good thing you caught it now! I had a half-shaft U-joint go on me last week, luckily I was stopped when it happened. (inboard joint too, would have made a real mess at speed) Looked to me like the snap ring just fell off, then the joint fell apart. Definately not from burnouts.

I believe brake cleaner is made from perchloroethylene. (PCE, or perc) I think carb cleaner is methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), but I could be wrong on that one. Either one is a good cleaner, though both are harmful if inhaled. I wouldn't use anything but brake cleaner on brakes... lots of stuff will leave a non-visable residue, that likely would just burn off quickly, but I don't think its worth the risk.

MM_280Z. I appreciate where you are coming from, in that there are a lot of 'silly' people out there that may not prepare themselves properly for 200mph. I would say that Mikelly is one of the opposite, those people that know exactly what they are getting into. If you look around this site, you'll notice Mike is involved in about 1,000 different discussions on what it takes to do 200mph in a Z. As far as engineering goes, I think this site has its fair share of engineers too. At least one aeronautical engineer, 3 or 4 mechanicals, civils, electricals, and at least 4 engineering students. Not to mention that there are MANY non-engineers on this site that know more about engineering that many engineers I've known. Not trying to berate you at all, I've seen so many half-assed attempts at stuff like this (200mph) that I tend to be skeptical at first as well.

"Better Design" doesn't necessarily equate to "better". Most people would admit that the real beauty of the SBC is parts availability. Its simply got the biggest aftermarket out there. IMHO that makes it a better engine than most out there. Its sorta the old Betamax/VHS thing, Beta was a "better design" but VHS had a bigger following, and in the end it was deemed "better" because more people had it, and it became easier to find parts (movies) for.

There was an article in "turbo & high tech performance" magazine with a SR20DET powered roadster. Actually if I remember correctly, it was the same issue that Jim Biondo's 74 260z was featured in. Definately an issue worth having.

Looks awesome Jim. I can't wait to see the pics of your running car.

Uh guys, I hate to burst your bubble. A good belly pan will aid in aerodynamics a whole lot, but a bad one will make it a whole lot worse! Unless you really know your aero you're probably better off NOT making one. There has to be some books out there with some insight into what makes a good one vs a bad one. This is not something that I would attempt to make on a sunday afternoon with no real idea of what I was doing... Or you may find yourself doing backflips at 80mph.

I see Kevin beat me to it, going to edit this a bit. "how to make your car handle" is written by fred puhn. Highly recommended by everyone I know thats read it. Very practical examples and descriptions, combined with the formula's if you want to get technical. A little of drag coefficient. (where is michael anyway? ) Force = -1/2*(density)*(velocity)^2*(Drag coefficient)*(Frontal Area) Air density is generally assumed to be 1.2kg/m^3. (you US guys should learn metric) Heh. So at a theoretical 1.2kg/m^3 density, Cd=0.44, frontal area 1m^2, velocity of 200mph (320km/h) the force from drag is: = (1/2)(1.2kg/m^3)[(88.9m/s)^2](0.44)(1m^2) = 2086.45N = 469lbs force drag at 200mph. At 100mph: = 119lbs force drag. Now these numbers may be low or high for the z, I am not certain the Cd is 0.44, I think it was. And I've assumed the frontal area is 1m^2. Kevin's estimate of 16.2ft^2 is more like 1.5m^2, so multiply my results by 1.5 to increase accuracy. One good way to measure frontal area. Take a front profile shot of your car on your digital camera, with a meter stick for reference. Print it out and carefully draw a uniform grid over the whole picture. Add up the areas of each grid. (its pretty easy to estimate 1/2 or 1/4 of a small grid) I wish I was taking fluid mechanics now, but I'm still a newbie at this stuff. (next semester) [ June 12, 2001: Message edited by: Drax240z ]

Come on Jim, you know better than that. Murphy says you have about a 95% chance of having them backwards. 50/50... hah!

Hey thats a nice looking piece, anyone find a price on it?