Dan Baldwin
-
Posts
623 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Dan Baldwin
-
-
Where did you hear that BS about the Mustang having a 500 lb. weight advantage?! The old 5.0 Mustangs DID have a ~200 lb. advantage (3400 Z28 vs. 3200 GT). With the DOHC powerplant, the Mustangs gained weight to the point that the advantage was gone (Z28 and Cobra Mustangs both weighed 3400 lb.). The Cobras were slower than the LS1 Z28s. The SOHC Mustangs were ~150 lb. lighter than a Z28, but were that much slower still. More comparable to the 3.8 5-speed V6 Camaros, in fact.Originally posted by timhypo:While I like the lines of the Mustang better, the FBody has more power and six gears. However, the Mustang has a 500LB weight advantage.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me the Mustang looks more like an aggressively-styled 2-door sedan, while the Camaro is a much more swoopy coupe. And the '99 Mustang restyle was, to me, pretty bad (bad eye-liner around the headlights, terrible hard angles and lines all over).
For daily driver duty, I must confess my 240SX is, in some ways, more fun than my '95 Z28 convertible, which is more fun than the '98 Cobra I've driven.
-
You might improve f/r weight distribution somewhat (then again, how much does a 928 motor weigh?), but you'd increase polar moment of inertia at the same time. Not to mention there's no room back there for a transaxle anyway. This sounds like a very good way to expend a lot of time, money, and effort for zero to very little performance improvement. You're already unique. Having a Porsche-engined Z-car won't maky you uniquer. Don't let the idea of doing something different only for the sake of being different distract you from making your car BETTER.
-
Unshaved, that'd put you at 9.8:1 CR. No problem. I ran over 10.2:1 with the stock cam in my N42-headed 3.1 liter for years with no problems. You will want to use premium fuel, though. Bringing your CR up to a decent level is one of the best things you can do for a NA Z, IMO.
-
Not for their standard 1300F coating. Quite a bit of that coating on my header has flaked off, beginning less than a year after I had it coated. I think they offer a 1600F coating as well, and there are other places to go as well.
-
I'm sure this has come up before, but why not boost the stock rotary engine, or a 20C three-rotor? 4-cylinder in an RX-7, well it just seems weird.
Best of luck getting there, though!
-
Better, but I would've scooted the whole front of the car back along with the greenhouse for a shorter-wheelbase car. Basic styling details on the 350 suck, though. The headlights look very Japanese sci-fi (Inframan, anyone?), and the form of the fender flares (basically a revolved radius) is not pleasing to my eye. The stylist himself said he wanted the wheel openings to look like two big horizontal cylindrical forms stuck in the slight wedge + obtuse triangle form of the car. If he wanted to make it more "steamrolleresque" than "sports car taut", I guess he succeeded.
I wanted a coupe version of a cross between a Miata and an S2000. Or, actually, anything less heavy-looking (though I guess the styling matches the car in that regard) and with some, I don't know, spirit/soul/personality/name-your-touchy-feely-expression.
-
Far out idea! Torque of the motor won't affect the suspension adversely any more than brakes do, by the way. The huge increase in unsprung weight would hurt handling and ride. Also, 300 lb worth of batteries isn't even close to what you'd need for any kind of range capability. The energy you get back through regenerative braking isn't anywhere near what you expend getting up to speed in the first place, maybe 20% tops. Aerodynamic and rolling resistance losses aren't recoverable. The motor/generator would have to be able to withstand the heat from braking, and the brakes would tend to run hotter as well due to less cooling and the additional heat of the motor/generator.
Of course I'm thinking only of performance driving. City buses would be a much better application.
-
A few months ago at a COMSCC event at NHIS, an instructor accidentally "upshifted" from 3rd to 2nd (trying for 4th) while accelerating out of turn 12 which leads onto the front straight. In his student's brand new 2002 M3. Totalled. I don't know the insurance/legal outcome. In the words of Steve McQueen, "It can happen".
-
M.S., B.S. Aerospace Eng. (structures emphasis)
Currently doing design/anaylsis/testing for an aluminum-framed electric motorscooter/motorcycle (~28hp, 65mph top speed).
Formerly worked for Lockheed Martin in Atlanta (F22, C130J, C141, C5), and as a student (co-op) for Martin Marietta in New Orleans (Space Shuttle External Tank).
-
What he said. No way a well-prepared ITS Z-car would be any problem for an equally well-prepared LT1 Z-car. It's just that there aren't many full-race V8 Zs. I feel DAMN good when I'm as quick as the ITS record at the New England tracks I go to, and I've got a good 60 rwhp on any ITS spec 240Z. I've got the motor, I just don't have the level of car preparation, the capacity for data collection and evaluation, or the driver talent that commited roadracing warriors have.
Hack vs. hack, or seriously developed car vs. same, an LT1 Z would spank an L24 Z in any performance contest.
-
.080 and .100 are in inches. Search the archives and you'll find a few semi-intelligent discussions of the P-heads vs. the N-heads. I wouldn't go to the trouble of shaving and shimming a P90. Then again it might be a good experiment, IF you go to the trouble of ensuring you don't change cam timing or compression ratio. While you're at it, you may as well do an N42 swap as well to help us quantify the performance diff between round/linered exh. ports and the supposedly better-flowing square ones.
-
If you find you have to retard the timing to avoid pinging, you could try the 2mm head gasket with one of the .020" layers removed (for a 1.5mm gasket) to get you to ~10.5:1 by my reckoning, which should be better-suited to running on pump gas.
-
If you lower a Z from stock ride height, you will increase negative camber (which is good!). This is because, stock, the inner control arm pivots are above the outer control arm pivots, and the outer control arm pivots are below the spindles/stub axles. Lower the car from stock ride height, and the horizontal distance from inner pivots to outer pivots/ball joints increases, pushing the bottom of the strut outboard.
For race Zs already lowered significantly, negative camber is LOST as the car is lowered, because the horizontal distance between inner control arm pivots and outer pivots/ball joints begins to decrease since the inner pivots are below the outer pivots in this case.
When I lowered my Z from stock about 1", I gained quite a bit of negative camber. When I tried out 1" bump steer spacers, I lost a lot of that camber at the front, so I removed them. On a more severely lowered car, the bump spacers would INCREASE negative camber at the front.
clear as mud?
Hey, how goes the RB26DETT progress?
-
grrr. Anybody actually see my dyno run? Anyway, it's here: http://www.classiczcars.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2274&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
Oh yeah, whatcha going to do with your 3.0 beast, Mike?
-
Fricking EXCELLENT, man! I see you have the same midrange bog as I do, mine is accompanied by a BIG dip in the A/F curve (goes way rich between 4000 and 5000. I've got 45mm OER Racing carbs (formerly SK). You've got WAY more torque than me, what's your CR? Here's my curve. I've since cured the leaning out at higher rpm and gained ~5 lb-ft from 4500 to redline, but that run was on a cold day (SAE factor 0.96) at a different dyno, and gave 199lb-ft and 233hp max.
-
In addition to the above comments,
Could also be a blown rear shock (i.e., plenty of damping on one side, NO damping on the other). Check your gland nuts (big nuts on top of the strut body), too. They can and do come loose, and cause suspension monkey motion if they do. Feels like a blown damper.
-
Any of you pervs wants to see me in my red PJs, click here: http://www.comscc.com/gallery/lrp1102/thumbnails.html
I'm the guy with the big, er, trophy.
-
For God's sake don't put 510 drums on your Z! MAYBE they offer more consistency. I know I had to adjust my rear drums about every other track session or I'd have to do the E-brake a couple of clicks to get the pedal back. But those 510 boat anchors are ugly! Al dissipates heat better as well, holding the heat isn't the name of the game, dissipating it is. Anyway, I can say that overheating the rear shoes/fluid was never an issue for me with the Al drums.
I'd rather live with adjusting them all the time than live with the ugliness and weightiness (unsprung mass) of the 510 drums. I went to ZX rear discs instead.
I'm half convinced this "mod" was created by the 510 guys in a ploy to get our snazzy Al drums.
-
Obviously better fuel metering is good. But the reason for a radiused air horn is to allow flow to develop in the inlet tract with minimal pressure loss and turbulence. Making the air take a hard 90 degree bend is something like having a reduced diameter restriction in the carb mouth. Now how to make Bob's and Norm's results make sense relative to each other, as they're both well known to be reliable sources? I believe Bob when he says aftermarket air horns don't flow any more than the stock ones, and the flow sucked with no air horns. And of course I believe Norm's trap speed actually went up .5mph (insignificant for 99% of us, significant for Norm) with the removal of the stock horns. I'd guess that Norm got more high-end power by reducing the inlet tract length (shorter length => tuned rpm goes up) than he lost by not having a radiused inlet. Of course he's on the right track with the stubbies. It'd be nice to see some dyno results to see what the torque curve is doing. I'd bet peak torque went down with the removal of the stock air horns, but peak torque rpm went up, giving greater peak power. Then I bet the original peak torque was regained with the stubbies, at higher rpm, giving even greater peak power. That's my guess.
-
Try to get a clutch type limited slip R200 from a 4/87 - '89 300ZX turbo (but not the all pearl white '88 SS diff, which is viscous and not a direct bolt-in). The LSDs have 4 spider gears instead of two (stouter). This would be going in a 240Z? If so you'll need input and output flanges and diff mounting hardware from a 280Z R200 to fit it up.
-
Bob, are you saying you didn't see any difference between having air horns and having NOTHING until you got to 150% VE equivalent flow? That would be very surprising. It wouldn't surprise me if the stock backing plate air horns flow almost as well as aftermarket ones, but I wouldn't expect a setup without any horns at all to flow nearly as well at 100% VE equivalent flow.
Norm's results are very surprising as well. It would be nice to have some comparitive dyno results. I wonder if not having anything, which should make the carbs act like they're smaller in diameter, might IMPROVE low-end to midrange torque to the point that ET and trap speed are better. Or if it's more an intake tract length relationship and the shorter length with no horns or with stub stacks improve midrange to high-rpm power. You ever go to the dyno, Norm?
Who was it said "In theory, theoretical results are more important than practical results, but in practice..."?
-
I drive my car (sometimes LONG distances) to the race track, and I'm a lazy bastard who doesn't want to change his settings all the time. I leave mine at about -2.25 deg front, -1.75 degrees rear. Toe is about zero at the front, and maybe 1/16 - 1/8" rear(?). I've only got about 2.5 degrees caster at the front, but I'm not worried about that as I like the way the car feels and it doesn't have any contradictory handling traits in low- vs. high-speed corners. Be aware that spring rates, roll bars, and differential type (open, limited slip, welded) will affect your handling characteristics as well. When changing setups, keep in mind every change you make is likely to affect balance, so be ready to make changes in different areas to keep the car handling neutrally.
-
But Bob, the full-radius ones look so bad-ass! Seriously, that sounds like good evidence that regular (not full-radius) horns are adequate. Probably a lot cheaper than the $45 EACH I paid for the TWM full radius ones for my old 2" Jag carbs. If you've got stock carbs, then the stock air filter backing plate air horns are the way to go. Running no horns at all will likely significantly reduce high-rpm breathing ability.
-
Running without any kind of air horns is pretty much similar to having a reduced-diameter restriction in the inlet flow path. Think of the air trying to make a hard 90 degree turn around
the face of the carb or filter backing plate. Any kind of radius there will help, and full-radius horns would be desireable. The stock air horns should be adequate for most applications, though. People (some racers, some idiots) who don't care about engine longevity may run air horns without filters. I've always used filters with mine. It can be really tricky because the strut tower and brake MC are in the way, so be sure you size the air filter and air horns to ensure they fit. I've got a big oval ITG filter over 6 45mm air horns, and it's kind of a
bitch to get the filter on. Better than before, when I had dual ITG filters over 2" full-radius air horns. I had to mount the filters upside down, and couldn't utilize the dzus-type fasteners to remove the filters, I had to unbolt the backing plates (whew). I should've used shorter air horns, full radius or not.
OK, daily driver questions.
in Non Tech Board
Posted
Oh yeah, it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that Fbodies outhandle Mustangs. Ask any SCCA autocross competitor in FStock, or roadracing competitor in T2.