Phantom

I recently read on article in this magazine on modding the LS1 engine and it prompted me to write them an email. I've copied it in here for comments. You'll have to start at the bottom to follow the timeline. From: "editors@streetmachineclub" Save Address ReminderTo: Subject: RE: LS1 Article CommentsDate: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:41:08 +0000 [View Source] Bill, Considering the effectiveness of the stock coil packs and DIS as a whole, the MSD coil packs won’t be worth much RWHP. If you were running a blower or some other power adder, they could offer improved spark capability under higher cylinder pressures than the stock units. But, in your case, I couldn’t justify them. They do look great, though… The purpose of the article has been served. You learned what you need, and what you don’t. The factory intakes are well designed and make good use of modern technology from the way they flow air to the material they’re made of. All they need is a cam and maybe a throttle body to really shine. We knew this going in, but the dyno numbers prove it without question. TPIS has been researching camshafts for many applications and I’m sure they’ll have one that’d be perfect for you- maybe a step down from the one we tested. They’ll also know how to dial in your ECM to work seamlessly with the cam they sell, as they’ve done much research on this. We chose to work with them for this purpose. They make great use of the really good factory parts until a client really wants to make some crazy power, and they’ve got a handle on that, too. But coordinating the “hard†parts (like cams) with software (especially the factory software, which is quite good) is something few others have even tried. TPIS has perfected it, and this drew us to work with them on the story as we presented it. It doesn’t take much to really let the LS1 shine, and you don’t have to go through the entire engine or purchase an expensive aftermarket harness and computer to see these benefits. We thought it would make for a great story, and it seems you agree. There’s at least another 50-75 RWHP waiting for you in that engine…now you know how to get it, and it won’t require a second mortgage or a complete teardown to find. Good Luck with it Bill. Thanks for the note, and I’m glad we could be of some assistance. It’s what we’re striving to do as a Club, and as a Club magazine. Scott Parkhurst Editor Street Thunder Magazine From: zedshed@att.net [mailto:zedshed@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:58 AM To: editors@streetmachineclub Subject: RE: LS1 Article Comments Scott, Thank you for your reply. My specific reason for the questions is that I'm running a '98 LS1 out of a Z28 Camaro in my 1977 Datsun 280Z. It is bone stock except for an edited ECU, K&N intake and headers - all of which were requied to do the install. It dyno'd at 311 RWHP & 326 LB-ft of torque flowing through a single 2 1/2" exhaust & headers with 1 1/2" primaries. Assumining a 15% drivetrain loss that puts it right there with the stock numbers you obtained. It only has 24,000 miles on it at this time. What I really walked away from the article was the realization that the bang-for-the-buck is in the cam. The LSA on the one you used is a bit more aggressive than what I've been considering, 113 vs 114, but otherwise very similar. I'm also not considering spinning mine over 6,500 rpm so I probably won't be doing any bottom end work. Intake wise I can't see spending money on anything other than the Z06 intake & throttle body. If I shop them carefully used I just can't justify the extra for the other options. Have you had an opportunity to evaluate the MSD coil packs since the article? I looked inot them. They are very pretty and talk performance but, without some good numbers, I'm not about to invest $600. Back to the bang-for-your-buck cam investment. My considerations are all tempered by the fact that my car is a 'daily driver', not a track car. It has been on the Texas Motorplex at Ennis, Texas and also the Texas Motor Speedway outside Fort Worth and acquitted itself very well in each case - but - it's real duty is taking me to and from work each day - and enabling me to really enjoy the commute! Sincerely, Bill Davis Arlington, TX -------------- Original message from "editors@streetmachineclub" : -------------- Bill- I’ve answered your questions in the order they were received… 1) How were the HP and torque numbers obtained? We dyno tested the engine on a SuperFlow dynamometer at TPI Specialties. 2) I assume these are 'flywheel' numbers (SAE net) rather than wheel HP numbers? That is correct- the Dyno measures power at the engine’s flywheel. 3) Could you have included the retail cost of the individual items? That is always an important consideration in any upgrade. Since many of the parts were factory units, we did not include retail prices. The market for used factory parts always offers a significant discount over dealer prices, and we expected the factory parts would be obtained by readers as “used.†The aftermarket parts prices tend to vary from retailer to retailer, and year to year. We hoped that by sharing results, readers could decide if the parts combinations were right for them. 4) Was the engine a 'crate' engine or was it pulled from an F-body or C5? If a crate engine, was it from GM? It was pulled from a 2001 Camaro SS. It is a heavily “used†engine and has not been fully rebuilt. The upgrades we discussed in the sidebar were the only alterations from “stock.†5) In your recommended upgrades for durability you never mentioned heads. Stock LS1 valve trains aren't up to 7,000 rpm redlines, are they? Otherwise, why the 6,000 rpm rev limiter on F-bodies? The factory 6,000 rpm redline is due to camshaft design and computer programming. Since we’d upgraded the camshaft and we had control of the programming, we increased the rpm redline. The stock valvetrain was in place. 6) Your photo shows MSD coil packs on the engine - were they used or the stock GM coil packs? The tests were done with stock coil packs. We did not receive the MSD coil packs in time for our testing, and barely got them in time for our photo shoot. They are very new! If we’d have used them in testing, we would have said so. 7) I've heard that the '97 & 98 LS1's had stronger connecting rod bolts than the later models which would eliminate the need for that upgrade on those engines? No. To safely live in the 500-plus horsepower range, the upgrade to ARP rod bolts is still strongly recommended. Thanks Bill! I hope this help ya! ~SP~ Scott Parkhurst Editor Street Thunder Magazine From: zedshed@att.net [mailto:zedshed@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:21 AM To: editors@streetmachineclub Subject: Article Comments I really enjoyed the techanical articles in the January/February issue of Street Thunder that I received yesterday. I was especially interested in the LS1 intake comparison since that's what I'm running in my Datsun 280Z. I'm sure the content of the article was limited by the space available so there are several questions that I have. 1) How were the HP & torque numbers obtained? 2) I assume these are 'flywheel' numbers (SAE net) rather than wheel HP numbers? 3) Could you have included the retail cost of the individual items? That is always an important considerationin any upgrade. 4) Was the engine a 'crate' engine or was it pulled from an Fbody or C5? If a crate engine was it from GM? 5) In your recommended upgrades for durability you never mentioned heads. Stock LS1 valve trains aren't up to 7,000 RPM redlines, are they? Otherwise, why the 6,000 RPM rev limiter on Fbodies? 6) Your photo shows MSD coil packs on the engine - were they used or the stock GM coil packs? 7) I've heard that the '97 & 98 LS1's had stronger connecting rod bolts than the later models which would eliminate the need for that upgrade on those engines? Sincerely, Bill Davis

After paging down my heart has restarted. Mike - in my family we don't get even for things like this - we get ahead! My wife and sons have an entirely unique definition of escalation! I'm patient - it will come!

Looking good. Keep the updates coming!

I've maintained that link for years. The best value item in the catalog is the economy lowering kit.

Jon, Interesting that in your original post you mentioned Boise, Idaho. I grew up there and would go back in a New York minute if I could find a job there. Four seasons with relatively mild summers and winters. Low humidity. Capital of state so government, university, museum, arts, etc. all there. All the outdoor sports you could want - except surfing - and some of the finest mountain roads for exercising a sports car you have ever seen. Obvioulsy close to Utah but a long drive to CA. Traffic? - what traffic? The total population of the entire county is about 250,000. Good hospitals and the cost of living index indicates its around 90% of the national average which is way cheaper than California - and even Seattle.

Hmm - I hadn't noticed this problem with mine with the JCI headers. Then again, compared to plug removal on any engine in an F-body this has to be easy. It took my son and I, working together, over three hours and half the tools in my garage, to change out the plugs on the 3.8L V6 in his '97 Firebird.

Mike Kelly, Sounds like your 'vette has an accurate computer which is not what I've experienced. I've had them in a mini-van, jeep, and now a suburban and they all errored high compared to actual calculations. Those were/are totally stock so no induced errors from oversized tires or changed gear ratios. I guess that is one of the uupgrades you get on a 'vette for the extra $$$? The worst mileage I've gotten in my LS1 Z is 10 mpg the day I ran at Texas Motor Speedway although that was mitigated a bit by higher mpg on the 30 minute drive there. The best is 24.5 cruising on the highway at 70 mph. It has the stock 75mm ECU and 28 lb injectors so that would account for it not being down around 8 like DaleMx has experienced with his. I challenged the MPG claims because, after 40+ years of driving, I know that most people don't take the time to really calculate it right. Now I know some on this board do. That's good to hear.

wwelll - maybe:redface: ?

Not to be a butt - but - I don't believe any of these numbers. I have seen no standard for determining fuel consumption on any of these posts which means, at best, everyone is probably doing it differently and, at worst, folks are just "swag"ing off their gas gauge and odometer - or even worse yet, using the average MPG that the computer generates on newer cars. I've found that number to be as much as 20-25% higher than actual. To ensure accurate information I "top off" my tank at every refill. That's the thing that all the gas stations tell you not to do to eliminate fuel spillage. I fill the tank right up to the inner lip of the inlet pipe so I know I fill to the same level +/- 1/4" every time. I reset my odometer each time and record the fuel to the nearest 1/10th of a gallon. Even then it varies by as much a +/- 1 mpg based on driving conditions. This is usually a lot more effort that most folks are willing expend so it seldom gets done this way.

My car was the prototype for the Johns Cars 'kit'. He had the car for 11 months and, from the 30+ trips I made to discuss things with him, I can vouch for the thought and design efforts that went into the kit. The engine and transmission mounts put them where they need to be to line up properly with the rear end of the car plus provide clearance for headers and steering linkage. The list of other "modifications" that are required is determined by personal preference. If you buy either a cableX converter box or chzasnge the tailshaft on the T56 to a mechanical speedometer output you don't need to change the speedometer. The tach can also be modified and the other gauges can have their senders incorporated into the LS1 installation. If the shell is a 280Z the tank doesn't need to be changed but the fuel lines will need to be rerouted in the engine bay. The pump and pressure regulator can be external models that mount where the stock pump mounts. This keeps the original instruments in place and a significant part of the fuel system. Any work to the suspension or brakes would be things that you would do whether you were running an LS1 or an L28 so they should be considered an issue somewhat separate of an LS1 install. Jphn Radevich (Johns Cars) estimated that an averege wrench could do the mechanical work on the install in about 40 hours. Probably close to the same for electrical - depending on how you approach it.

I've seen a couple tests on different throttle bodies on the LS1 engine. So far they have indicated that all the 90mm TB's are pretty much equivalent . You might find one that will give and additioanl 3-5 HP at 7,000 RPM but below 6,000 doesn't seem to help. Bang for the buck seems to be the LS6 intake manifold & GM 90mm TB.

I weighed my car on certified scales before and after the conversion. I started with a '77 280Z that was 1,400 lbs on the nose and 1,400 lbs on the tail with 3/4 tank of gasoline. This is a street car with all the equipment right down to the AC system. When I was done, with front and rear strut tower braces, the car weighed 2,830 lbs with all the additional weight on the rear. The LS1 sits low enough and far enough back that it is almost a "midships" mount. Only the water pump and accessories are forward of the front axle. The T56 is the culprit that adds the weight but again it is low and very centrally mounted in the car. If you want to keep the weight down then look at a 4 or 5 spd that is set up for the particular tracks you run. I don't track my car much but in over 20,000 miles of driving the only difference in handling that I have noticed is the ability to throttle oversteer that I didn't used to have.

Has anyone seen the cam/ECU kit that Painless Wiring has now for LS1's? It dynos at 409/407 if I remember fight - but that's flywheel HP. I also saw an article on several different intake manifold/throttle body set-ups for the LS1 in another magazine. What I noticed most was the cam they put with the LS1 that netted about 100 HP and 60 LB-ft of torque with no change in heads, intake or TB. THe most interesting part of the comparison was that, basically, there was less than 1% inprovement below 5,000 RPM on any of the intake/TB options and none of them were siginificantly better than the LS6 intake with a 90mm TB. I also noted that their "stock" LS1 was maxing at 371 HP and 380 LB-ft of torque (flywheel) but they were also taking it to 7,000 rpm. I'm not real comfortable taking a stock LS1 valve train to 7,000 RPM.

Thanks Dan. I'd already found that info and it is no longer current. Even google'd the name in the town and came up dry. Also tried a reverse look-up on the number with no results. Looks like local machine shops are going to get rich building custom parts for these cars as some of the items start to fail.

Dan, Do you know if they are still in business or a way to contact them? I need some parts for my Z32 convertible that are nowhere to be found as far as Nissan is concerned.

I sold the ones off my '77 for $200 for the pair a couple years ago. They are about $1,200 new with all the pieces/parts.

That looks like the one from Arizona. Isn't it a Strahan Z31 convertible conversion? That would make it the father of the Z32 convertible.

John, That's where even more trouble can occur. If you go to an Unbrako catalog you'll see that their Grade 8 bolts are rated at 190ksi tensile and 170ksi yield which is even higher than the metric 12.9's made by Textron. This would yet be another opportunity for a loose or overstreatched bolt. This is why I recommended against arbitrarily going to higher strength bolts. If you don't do your research, "a good idea", can open up a whole can of worms.

This is not a good rule to follow. First of all an SAE grade 8 is a metric 12.9. An SAE grade 5 is a metric 8.8. The metric 10.9 falls between them. Secondly - bolt grade also determines the required "stretch" to get the bolt to seat (grip) properly. If the original bolt was a metric 8.8 and you replace with an SAE grade 8 a much higher torque will be required to seat the bolt properly and you risk stripping the threads in the mating part. If you torque ian SAE grade 8 to the original bolt torque that was a metric 8.8 it will not stretch properly and will come loose. Third - stainless bolts are rated the same way alloy bolts are rated - that's what those funny marks on the bolt heads are for.

Yeah - Mike - but there's always the compromise of a carburated LS!!!! Oops - if I've hijacked the thread I;'m sorry. No, not really.

If you go to my photo album you can see how the Autopower fits with my seats. Try this link. http://album.hybridz.org/showphoto.php?photo=2253&cat=500&page=2 Note that it has no harness bar. It came with one but interfered with me being able to lean my seat back like I needed so I cut it out. I don't compete enough to justify more than the stock seat belts.

I remember hearing something about the aluminum frame under them taking a set after several years that caused alignment problems? I've always liked them but have stayed away because of the perceived "cost of ownership".

I have the Autopower 4-pt. roll bar from MSA that only has the diagonal bar - not the big horizontal. Two points: 1) The diagonal bar will keep the passenger seat from coming all the way back so will make the seat uncomfortable for tall - over 6' people. 2) I have the stock Datsun S30 seat and the backof it is tight against the vertical part of the roll bar on the driver's side when it is leaned back. I'm 6'4" and need all the space I can get. If you are shorter and either don't push the seat all the way back or don't have to lean it back a seat that's wider than the S30 seat may work ok - but then again - maybe not.

Not to pick on you 240ZR but there should be a lesson here for everone on this board. Here is a nice car that has a lot of cash and sweat equity in it and it's not streetable. How many "projects" are just sitting out there because someone walked themselves into a corner with the modifications? Anyone building a hybrid should spend some time playing chess before they even start. It's important to not just be able to plan to the next level but think three or four or more beyond that to ensure the current plan won't create problems in the future and be the source of yet another dreaded "do-over". The exhaust is a perfect example of that. A large diameter combined with a lowered car becomes a "track only" vehicle. My car is stock height and, at one time, I was considering a single 3 1/2" exhaust for it. One quick round of clearance calculations and I ended up with dual 2 1/2" with a "clearance tube" on the passenger side where it passed under the differential support that has an oval cut-out on the drivers side. It also was "sectioned" so that it could be easily removed to access the starter on the passenger side. Even with that I've scraped it a couple times. It's not just putting the car together. As difficult as that may be the real chore is to put it together in a way that it satisfies your original requirements and is livable from a driving and maintenance stand point. Remember - the goal is to get it all together and drive it long enough to actually have to do some maintenance on it in the future.

I've actually posted on this once before. I did a ram air experiment for a mechanical engineering senior design class. I used the 340 'Cuda I had at the time as I was considering opening up the hood scoops to get ram air. The first thing I discovered - like Pontiac with the Firebird -that the inlet to the scoop needs to be moved to the leading edge of the hood to avoid the dreaded pressure curl that occurs when the air rises up over the hood. The second thing I discovered is that there is no sifgnificant contribution made by 'ram' air until you're passing the 90 MPH mark. Below that it is negligible. The third thing I discovered was that the temperature of the ambient air above the hood was about 100°F lower than the intake air behind the radiator. The additional density of the cooler air netted about a 5% gain in HP. Bottom line - the term is 'cold air intake' - any way you can get it - whether it be by cowl induction or a hood scoop.