Drax240z

How about a GM air temp sensor and a multimeter? Cheap and easy.

You guys are all on the same page more or less, and are overlooking something. 1) Some people get real enjoyment out of having a show car, and showing it. For them, that is what gives them the most pleasure. Cruises, the social circle that follows from the shows and cruises is important to them. 2) Some people get lots of enjoyment from driving their car, racing it, driving hard etc. 3) Some people get lots of enjoyment from BUILDING the car. They aren't necessarily interested in racing or showing their car. Do whatever you get the most pleasure from. For me, it's actually a combination of all of them. Likely 3-2-1 for me, I would rather build cars than drive them, and drive them than show them. However, my car has been in car shows, I autocross it and I am always tweaking/building it.

I'm comparing the eibach pro kit and the tokico advanced handling kit... which include 'generic' tokico lowering springs. I haven't calculated the rates for the 240z, but I am 99% certain they are less than what you'd have with the AZC springs. (if I guessed I'd say ~160-180lb/in for the tokico stuff)

I'm tossing around the idea of building myself a new engine for my Z, and trying something a little different. I have tons of L series parts available, basically everything from every model of engine. So the rod/stroke ratio isn't terribly good in most L series, not since the L24 anyway. Since rod/stroke ratio greatly influences detonation resistance this should be a good area to design a turbo engine around. What I have in mind is a L24 crank, L24 rods, F54 block, turbo pistons, N42 head, setup. This will put me right around 8.0:1 CR, or slightly higher with a surface plane done. (Let's say 8.25:1 for arguments sake) And the rod/stroke will be 1.80. Displacement however is reduced to 2569cc on a standard bore. Let's use my current engine to compare with. Stock 82 turbo engine, slight head surface, around 7.5:1CR, 2753cc displacement, 1.65 rod/stroke. So the question is: What engine is going to have more off boost response? The 7.5:1CR 2753cc or the 8.25:1CR 2569cc? My thoughts are that they would be quite similar in this respect. (all other things being equal) I would expect the 1.80 engine to rev more smoothly, have more resistance to detonation, get better off boost fuel economy, and in the end be able to run more boost safely. Thoughts? Generally I don't expect reducing displacement to be a performance enhancer... just feeling out your collective thougthts on the matter. Who knows, someone here may have allready tried this out!

The method I've been using (a lot recently too) on fabricated intercooler setups (most of them done poorly) is to made an adapter and pressurize the entire intake system with compressed air to ~20psi using an air compressor. While holding that pressure I use soap and water on all the connections to check for leaks. Usually people that don't think they have leaks are amazed by the amount I can find in their piping this way. Especially with a MAF/AFM system this can be a big problem. I made a simple round adapter that clamps into a hose coupling, and has a connection for my air hose on it. I usually remove the air filter and insert this adapter/coupling, clamp it on and test. Actually I recommend ANYONE running an IC to try this out, you'll be surprised with what you find.

I've done the math, I don't see how a downpipe like that can be made in SS for less than $300 honestly... I've been considering making a few though.

Tokico all the way. I find progressive springs are quite unpredictable in hard driving/racing, and when coupled with quality dampers, the ride quality doesn't seem to suffer much with the Tokico springs.

As with any material, failure due to fatigue is a direct result of the stresses and strains present in the part. A stronger part = less stress = longer fatigue life. This applies to any material, but is especially important to take into account with materials that don't have a high UTS compared to their yield strength such as aluminum. When these materials fail, the failures tend to be more catastrophic (ie: breaking the part in half) as compared with steel (deformation of said part).

I'd say a lot would depend on the driver in that case.

Ah yes, I must be on glue, my calcs agree here with what you guys just said.

DAW, I don't have my calculations handy here, but I'm pretty certiain that the LD28/L24/KA24 stroker combo ends up at 1.68:1 rod/stroke, which is better than the stock L28 of 1.60:1... (if I am recalling this correctly, I do remember that the stroker setup has a more favorable rod/stroke than a stock L28 however)

Alright, moved over for you. I see your dilemma now, and I am curious to how much your airflow numbers are varying based on 80% and 85% VE. I would think you will still be close enough to size your compressor to cover both eventualities. (I think I'd tend towards the 80% number however) This is some good info about turbo's, I think this is the first I've heard of a T04E 60trim being too much with a stage 3 wheel. For my own ride I have been contemplating T04E 50 trim, with 0.60 A/R and T3 0.63A/R and a stage 3 wheel. My issue is I do not want less power available below 3000rpm when compared with the stock T3. How do you find the characteristics of your current hybrid in comparison with the full T3? (I realize it makes a ton more power, I mean drivability, throttle reponse, etc)

Funny thing about insulating pipes, it doesn't necessarily work like you first think it should. The problem is that you increase the surface area of the pipe, making it more apt to transfer heat from convection. In the end this increase in surface area MAY cause an insulated pipe to be hotter than it would be uninsulated. I have seen cases where this is indeed true. (actually we did a lab on this in one thermo course) Of course a simple test could prove whether it will work in your situation or not.

Well doug you'll find that the VE varies, A LOT, on RPM. The setup you talk about may reach over 100% VE at a certain RPM, and then reach 60% VE at another RPM. A lot of it has to do with the harmonics of the intake system, and what RPM you get positive pressure waves occuring. I'd just stick with the 80% figure if you want something general to base your turbo sizing on. Or are you building this engine for a specific (narrow) RPM range?

Are you talking VE# on the same engine, without a turbo? A turbo will allow for a VE much higher than 100%.

Motegi MR-8's look nice. This topic has been discussed a fair bit, do a search and you'll find more comprehensive answers.

Well I'm not sure there is much of a difference actually... though I think my way may be the easier method for fabrication. Jersey, you are assuming that the IC will cool the charge the same amount regardless of the beginning temperature. What MAY in fact be happening is something like this: Scenario 1 (plumbed my way): 200* out of the turbo, 20* gained across engine bay behind radiator (10% gain), 150* dropped by IC (50% reduction), leaves 70* intake temp. Scenario 2 (plumbed your way): 200* out of turbo, IC cools it to 100* (50% reduction), and it gains 10* again crossing behind the radiator (10% gain), leaving a 110* intake temp. The way I look at it, (and my thermo is rusty at best) is that the intercooler will cool the charge a fixed percentage (well, reasonably close to fixed) depending on its overall efficiency. The same can be said for the cross pipe behind the radiator, though I would hope it would transfer heat at a much lower efficiency than the IC. Given that the IC is more efficient than the piece of tube (a safe assumption) it stands to reason that Scenario 1 would result in lower intake temperatures. I get the sneaking suspicion that my logic is flawed though. Someone around here must be a thermo guru. Set us straight!

Using an old blown strut tube coupled with a piece of angle iron works well to get everything aligned in my experience. In every case I've done I've always sectioned out the existing spring perch weld, which allows the new weld to be over the coilover tube base, hidden by the sleeve and above the springs load.

The only 2 drawbacks I can see with using adapters are: 1) Slightly greater unsprung weight 2) Twice as many nuts to come loose I used them myself for quite some time with no ill effects. They are a proven method of changing offset and have been used in racing, on the street and all over the place for decades. I've seen many instances of cars crashed with wheel spacers on, and the spacers held up a lot better than the wheels or the rest of the car in every case.

My air inlet goes down and the filter is mounted just peeking out under the radiator. At some point I will fab up a shield to direct strictly cold air to that area, and block warm air. No AC on my car. My intercooler has no 2->1 merges at all. It is layed out: air filter -> turbo -> across engine bay to intercooler -> out of intercooler into TB. Pretty standard setup. The other option for an air filter depending on the size of your oil cooler/intercooler is to run the air filter out through the lower hole of the rad support on the drivers side, and run the IC pipe through the upper hole on the same side. I did that with my smaller NPR setup but didn't have room for that this time around.

Mine is 19" wide, 14" tall, 2" thick. (medium) The large ones are another 4" taller or so.

PH8A is a Ford Filter and works on L series blocks.

Price depends where you are. In my mind, pretty much any price is worth paying for a rust free Z, as they are rare in this neck of the woods. A rust free Z BARE SHELL goes for about $2500 around here.

240Z (S30 Chassis) 1970-1973 Very much lighter than its brethren, and not as stiff. A stock 240z weighs 2355lbs give or take. This is the best place to start if you want the ultimate in power to weight ratio. It can be as stiff as the later cars with the addition of a cage and other bracing, but still be lighter. 260Z (S30 Chassis) 1974 The ugly duckling, but combines some of both the 240z and the 280z. Big crash bumpers are the negative side. (can be removed to save weight) It's lighter than the 280z though, and the dash, center console and heater controls are the more functional and modern 280z design. A very good V8 cantidate IMHO. 280Z (S30 Chassis) 1975-1978 The S30 chassis is getting heavy by this point. Beefier rear end in some models, thicker sheet metal, crash bumpers, more sound deadening, less interior room. With some restyling/lightening the 280z can be brought down from it's ~3000lbs curb weight to as little as ~2600lbs. More chassis stiffness than the earlier cars. Also had the desireable vented hood in 77-78, and a nicely baffled gastank for EFI applications. 280zx (S130 Chassis) 1979-1983 Bigger, heavier, lots of creature comforts. These were nearly luxury cars at the time. 79 & 80 models were lighter, as later years had T-tops. (which nearly always leak, and new seals are outragously expensive) Beefier differential, options like digital dash, talking lady, cruise control, climate control, etc. etc. etc. Rear suspension is changed from a chapman strut to a semi-trailing arm design. Disk brakes all around, and front brakes are vented and quite a lot better than in the 280z. 280zx are still hovering around the 3000lbs mark in stock condition, with the 2+2's weighing more. Likely more work for the V8 swap, but the result is more civilized and has more creature comforts. A good choice for a daily driver if you want a bit of 'plush'.

Another oddity, 2+2 and coupe windshields do not interchange. One or the other is about a 1/4" smaller in all directions. I varified this with multiple windshields too, I just can't remember which one was smaller, though I believe it was the 2+2 windshield that was smaller.