Leon

I was wondering the same thing!

quite enthusiastically! When

Of course!

I'm coming at it from a physics perspective. Anecdotal evidence doesn't have much merit unless you actually measured the amount of nose-dive vs. braking distribution (at a given braking force)?

I have one from a 240Z, not sure if it's the same though.

Valves are adjusted with feeler gauges, not your ears. Set it to factory spec (unless the cam grinder specs otherwise).

And my contention is that a severly front-biased system will not dive more than a properly biased one. Your statement is a non sequitur. Not trying to rain on your parade here, just clearing up some facts...

Nope, nose-diving is nose-diving. Would you agree that a car will dive whether the rear brakes or front brakes are actuated? What I'm getting at, is it doesn't matter which axle does the braking. The amount of weight transferred to the front axle is dependent upon total braking force. How much the nose dives has to do with spring rates, suspension geometry, and available braking force.

What makes you think that's how an "unproportioned vehicle" behaves? Nose-diving means there is (longitudinal) weight transfer. Longitudinal weight transfer to the front of the car ("nose-dive") is caused by a braking force. More braking force equals more nose-diving. If your nose dives less than before, it's telling me that you have less braking force, not more.

Looks great Takashi, a very nice original body! I'll have to check that Z out sometime.

I was going to say S2000, but it won't be as comfortable as a BRZ/FRS on that long commute everyday. I commute in my S2000 once or twice a week, a 100mi round trip each time. I've tracked fuel consumption for a year now, and I'm averaging 28mpg overall. The factory hardtop alleviates some wind noise and gives me another inch of headroom. At 6'2", I'm a tight fit in the cabin but I deal with it. Not only is it a great sports car but the reliability is up there with any other Honda. It's what convinced me to get the S instead of an E36 BMW M Coupe, which I'll admit I still drool over! I've driven the FRS and it's a fun yet still comfortable car. I felt like it slotted in nicely between a Miata and S2000 in terms of performance, but was more utilitarian and easier to live with than either one. It seemed like a better compromise for daily-driving when compared to the S (more comfy, but less power and maybe slightly better mpg?).

I believe by lower, he means a numerically higher gear ratio, i.e. >4.11.

Wow... Hi-ho, hi-ho, Off to the shed we go!!!

Nice, looking forward to see if it helps!

That's strange, I can see them on my home and work computers.

I got another Z! This one was a b-day gift from the future inlaws. Back on topic, the Z is naked front and back! I sold the air dam today since I've had a new one sitting in my storage for years. New one will be installed soon, but I'm not in a huge rush since I've sent out the tail light trim to be re-chromed (9teen7t240z runs a nice service for this). Before pics: When removing the tails, I noticed that the left tail light gasket was in pretty bad shape. I've got a new one coming from MSA, and I'm hoping the fume issue gets a little better...

Live and learn!

Yes, but turbo or not, the engine will benefit from wave tuning (and he did specifically ask about resonance effects). I don't think an extra 12-15" of intake length will have a perceptible effect on throttle response.

Good to know about port length, thanks for that info. All I'm saying is that the tuned RPM is a function of more than just runner length. Rules of thumb can be used with varying degrees of success.

You can't say that without assuming some key factors. There is no "one-size-fits-all" with runner lengths, it is dependent upon the application (i.e. cam profile, air temp...). Is the port really 4 inches long? I haven't measured so I don't have an answer but that seems a bit long.

There is no reason to cross-post, so please don't...

FWIW, my Webers idle at 14.5:1, cruise at 13:1 (I will lean this out further) and go to 11-12:1 at WOT (this needs some trimming). I can stomp on it in 1st gear, at 1200rpm and take off without a hitch. I've reached this point by using proper e-tubes (Keith Franck's design), fine-tuning the idle jets (KF's hypojets), and finishing up with the accel circuit. Accel enrichment tuning should be done last, just as if you're tuning EFI. There's a scientific approach to tuning these carbs, jumping from circuit-to-circuit will have you chasing your tail. Take a look at Keith's "White Paper" in the Files section of Sidedraft Central. You'll have to register there first. Although the site is Weber-focused, the approach is the same for any DCOE-like carburetor.

The first harmonic is strongest with the rest following suit. Hitting the 1st harmonic is ideal as far as resonance tuning goes, but it isn't practical (think 5 foot long runners). Shoot for the lowest harmonic that is practically achievable for you. I'm not sure what you mean by "a number comparison between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave"? To answer the original question, bends don't affect wave propogation, at least not meaningfully. Bends do increase pumping losses, but a "dry" runner will experience less losses (lower density) and by the sound of it you're using a dry runner (port injection).

Turns out I gave mine away earlier this year! gk already got a refund and is probably still looking for one.

Ok... First off, I don't think anyone was debating what AN stands for. Here is how the AN scheme actually works: the dash number represents the outside diameter of the tubing, not the inside diameter. A -3AN line will have an OD of 3/16". Therefore, the ID will clearly be smaller.