Daeron

Well, that isn't exactly true. Just because it hasn't become "Official HybridZ Canon" thru sticky-ism until the last year or two, doesn't mean that nobody has done it. This thread was largely compiled of peoples' experiences, both personal and those seen on racecars, from the last 30-40 years. I've known, at least in a vague sense, that "the racing guys" did this sort of thing "a long time ago" for a good ten years or so. If I am not mistaken, the idea had been batted about (and almost certainly used SOMEWHERE) for years and years before the SBC got it integrated (what was that, Gen II, something? Early 80's? I don't know my Chevies....) The first thing I asked when I learned all about iron blocks with aluminum heads, versus iron/iron, was "Well, where does the coolant go first, the block, right? Can't you just flip it around and let it cool the hot, softer cylinder head first?" or something to that effect, so I guess what I am saying here is that the sense of discovery, the tone of "Eureka" this thread holds is alot more superficial than it might seem. It is something that is getting widespread, knowledge that "another forum" failed to be able to convey, but hybridZ is finally making public and popular. In a more perfect world, this thread could have been around as long as ten years ago, but the timing wasn't right.

"Kidney Pinch" FTW

http://miami.craigslist.org/mdc/cto/1336398098.html This car has been posted before, but not listed for $1000!!!

I was reading a thread about a Twice Pipes setup, and wanted to post a link to something I had done in the past. I couldn't find it, so I thought I would post this up here and nominate it for s Sticky for reference purposes. We all like to HEAR our engines. The lure of big, loud pipes calls gearheads of all ages, no matter what kind of machine their motor is attached to. Dirtbikers, riverboat racers, weekend lawyer Harley riders, Pontoon Boat captains, helicopter pilots, racecar drivers.... we ALL love our pipes. Unfortunately, though, due to a tricky arithemtic process called squaring, whereby the radius of a pipe is multiplied by itself (and pi) to obtain the cross-sectional area (and thus, the flow capacity) of a circular pipe... Many of us find it very difficult to easily visualize and compare the differences between a 2" and a 3", and dual 2" vs single 4", and dual 1.75" versus single 3" (or was it single 2.5"?) pipe setup. Rephrase: Comparing potential exhaust/intake tubing sizes is tricky because you have to square the difference in size. Our brains are used to comparing the difference in size in a linear manner. Thus, two falsehoods easily take root in EVERYONE'S mind (until education prevails!!): A: The difference from 2"-3", and the difference from 3"-4", would seem to be the same; AND B: The capacity of a single 3" pipe should be roughly twice that of a pipe roughly half the size, 1.5". Unfortunately, both of those statements are dead wrong. Let me go do the math for you!! :wc: So!!!!!!!!! Here you go. The numbers in the two columns on the left are pipe diameter. This is how pipes are sold usually. The numbers in the columns on the right are cross-sectional area. THIS is the number that you compare apples-to-apples with between different size pipes when determining flow. Double the cross sectional area, you double the flow capacity. However, lets look at the cross sectional area of a pipe that is 1.75". At 2.405 square inches, we want to know what to compare our nice, new dual system to, so we double that number to get about 4.8 inches. Scroll down on the chart a few lines and there is one at 4.909 square inches. Scan back over to the left and we discover that the twin 1.75" pipes have just a hair less flow potential than the single 2.5" pipe. Further inspection reveals that it takes twin 3" pipes to beat a single 4" pipe! These things are not as intuitive as they might seem, and the further away from Zero you get, the more drastic the changes make themselves felt. I hope this helps as much as I imagine it could.

Hmmm. Couldn't say why, myself. Whatcha reckon you gonna do with that rear end? I'll trade you a nice 3.54 for it.. that will set you cruising at 60 mph at about 2800, 2900 or so. That 4.11, that thing isn't worth its weight in horse kidneys. Could you get a shipping quote to 33413? The above post is completely off, I don't know if he meant 1604 RPM and typed 1064 by mistake or what. I remember it being a little under 3K. (Its been about six years since I DDd my Z)

You got better mileage in the city than on the highway? It seems to me that most of the people with quotes below 20ish MPG are talking about 4 speed vehicles. The overdrive gear is a HUGE gas saver. The "15-28" range seems a little unreasonable to me; too much of a blanket statement. With a five speed and a reasonable rear end ratio, 20-30MPG is what I would expect out of a stock or near-stock S30 or S130. I would give the phrase "near stock" a very broad range of applicability, and you have to anticipate excursions down towards 15-10 when you are talking about 4-speed, or mega power machines... but something about this phrase: just struck me as overly broad. Just don't forget how significantly the extra gears help

that seat looks the same as the seats I have in my CRX; PO said they were Integra seats I believe?

+1, sucks for you but at least you can take your own responsibility. Is the rest of the car as nice as it looks?

In my mind, the difficult part in an endeavour like this would be to choose the path to take, and then to STICK WITH IT. IE, you have the rubber air dam, preventing air flow underneath the car, nd you have such and such manifest advantages with that setup, and so and so manifest disadvantages with it. Were I to be in your shoes, I would be very worried about letting a drop or two of "the other school of thought" into my arrangement. It seems like this would be the most dangerous kind of poison, and that the important thing is to stick with the gameplan you have chosen, and make sure that all modifications are done with that gameplan in mind. A ground hugging airdam combined with an elegant rear underside diffuser seems contradictory, yanno? I guess what I am trying to say is that, whatever "problems" one may notice and "solutions" one might suggest, the important thing is to know which "solutions" can be integrated with the approach you have taken, and which "solutions" would be best as a part of a complete re-engineering of the aerodynamic profile of the car. Anyone who has actually DONE this sort of thing is much more likely to understand what I am saying without needing me to spell it out; the rest of us, though, need to keep it in mind when throwing ideas your way.

Not as easy as it sounds; The only good option (bear in mind I am far more familiar with the generation of engines and transmissions immediately preceding the EJ, but the auto gearbox on the EJs is identical to one that was prototyped in the older models, so I cannot be too far from the mark) is to simply remove the front drive axles and "plug" them up.. but you are still spinning the entire front differential assembly. "Just removing it" isn't an option, it is an integrated transaxle. The 3 speed automatic that was in MY old subaru (EA series, NOT EJ) was the same FS23985098120983C gearbox (don't know the number exactly) from Hitachi that was also put into the automatic Z-cars and RWD Maximas, the pickup trucks, and the 240SXs. The Electronically controlled 4 speed auto that was fitted to later Subaru EA series cars, was its direct descendant (andhonestly, much more related to the 240SX auto and the later pickup autos than our old 240Z auto.) All of the gearboxes, manual or auto, are made by Hitachi, for both Subaru and for Nissan. ALSO, at one time, I had done some research and discovered that the input shafts on the transmissions (i think i was checking an S30 trans) were QUOTED as having the same diameter, and the same spline count. Note: this is research done via parts website lookup, NOT hand-eyeball measurement. In other words, the Subaru clutch disc might well spline onto the input shaft of, say, a 5 speed from a 240SX.... AND there is even a fighting chance that you could remove the bellhousing from an EJ transmission, and splice it onto a 240SX transmission. (Similar to what has been discovered with using a 240SX 5 speed on an L28.) There is data out there that suggests ALL of this could be relatively simple. (Also, I am fairly certain I posted it earlier on in this thread.) Nobody has yet taken the opportunity to physically check out the transmissions and the engines and see what would need to be done to make it work.

Runner ID?? Interesting find, my friend... I really like the curves on those runners.

Were you planning on trying to keep the Subaru gearbox on the EJ? If so, your diagram is entirely off. The front driveshafts of the Soobie gearbox stick out right about the middle of the two cylinder bores. If you are trying to set it fully behind the front axle, then you are commiting to either a RWD layout, or a fully divorced transfer casing and front differential like a pickup truck.

Arggghh!!! Just reading that frustrates me, so I can only imagine how you must feel!!!

Me too..... "fill the holes in your head with Valves to keep from losing the Spark..."

I hear you loud and clear; I am the same way, which is why I chimed in, searched for the datum I wanted to tell you, and gave it to you. The bore spacing is what determines the wall thickness (given your "no holds barred" approach) and there is NO better way to drive home the upper limit on bore diameter better than to paint the picture of a crankshaft with conrods and pistons on it... When those pistons are of a diameter too high to line up . If you could manage to spin this crankshaft outside of an engine block, it would probably make a wicked sounding bell for about three seconds..... KA-LINKALINKALINKALINK!!!

well DUH!!!

Panzer: that last pic you posted, I am pretty suure, Is a head that Monzter is building. It was a welded P90 that he actually totally (but subtly) relocated the spark plug holes. I am going to cast a vote here saying this idea won't pan out on our engines. It is a throwback to an ear of much larger combustion chambers and big domed pistons. and there isn't any room. There are other methods to fight a battle on similar fronts (the Battle for Complete and Efficient Combustion and Harness of Power) that will yield much greater results for the effort in our L-6. Cylinder head cooling modifications, flat top pistons with proper shaped reliefs on high quench heads, tweaking R/S ratios.. I may be wrong, and I would be interested to be proven wrong... and even if I am right, plenty of old Datsun motors have been built using big open chambers and domed pistons, so the idea could yet be put to use... but it still probably would be better to start elsewhere for most people. HTH

Now, my understanding of all the issues involved is not secure enough to try to school anyone, or even try to explain to anyone, alot of this kind of stuff.. but one thing I have gathered about considering rod and stroke ratios, and RPM ranges, and detonation resistance of this or that design.... is that there is no "right" or "wrong" way, each engine must be built with all factors considered, as individual cases. To the OP: the bore center spacing on most of the gaps in an L-series block is 96mm; the gap between #3 and #4 is 98mm. No matter what you do, bore it, weld in sleeves, melt out all the metal and install paper-mache jugs, if it uses an L-series crankshaft, there will be a maximum circle of 96 mm before your imaginary pistons wont fit on the crankshaft outside of a block or in it.. they simply wont line up if they are any larger than 96. Obviously 96mm itself won't work. SO.. work backwards. How much of a wall thickness is tolerable? if you go with, say, 91mm bores, you only have a total of five millimeters of metal in between each of your paired pistons. That is just a little more than 3/16s of an inch. That, to me, seems pretty much impossible in the real world, unless you are prepared to go through a new engine block with every tank of gas (or oil change, or some other ridiculously shortened lifespan)

now DATS what i'm friggin' talkin about!!!!!

mack, re read his post and then click the video linked. Sarcasm FTW

ohhhhhhh yeah...... I knew that. I really intended any ol' metal bushing; copper just springs to mind because it (or brass or bronze) is most commonly used (when no metallurgical issues arise, obviously.)

not paying attention

What about getting some copper tubing and using it as a bushing of sorts as needed? You could cut it lengthwise and roll it into any thickness or diameter needed. Just a thought (in case you somehow missed it; I haven't read "the other thread")

fuel pressure too high? injectors not closing all the way/leaky? AFM reading within spec per the bible?

wondersparrow, I think it looks freakin amazing, even if it could use some elbow grease. I saw it and started grinning immediately.