Leon

Well put, and saved me the trouble of more typing.

It's not a huge deal, just enjoy your car! 240Zs are dead simple, no seatbelt interlock crap or anything like that. Finish it up already!

That's some serious equipment.

And FWIW, the PO previously weighed the car on truck scales and it came out to 2414lb for a complete, essentially stock, early 260Z with fluids.

Damnit, look what you did Nathan! It's not a huge deal, but it has beefier control arms and apparently a slightly stiffened frame (although I'm not sure by how much), but still weighs in at about 2400lb. There are a few other nice features that were first introduced on the 260Z as well, such as a nicer interior (e.g. 280Z-style dash and console), stock rear ARB, electronic ignition, etc. Yet, the wiring is not much more involved than a 240Z. I've been a 260Z fan since buying my first one, but honestly, as long as you have a good body, any S30 will do.

Don't worry Clive, pics will be coming. Are you getting another 260Z? I though you had that white one, and sold another one. I've been really busy, but I'll attach a few more teasers. I'm not even sure when I'll have time to wash it... Sssshhhh! Don't let the secret out. No worries, I'll be sure to link the new thread here.

Damn, that looks fantastic!

Yeah, sold it a few weeks ago and it's now resting in the LA area! Thanks Clive! Too much going on to start a new build thread on it right now, but it is essentially 90% restored (all new hardlines, hardware, interior, weatherstripping, nice paint, no rust, etc.) and came with a bunch of nice parts as well (including an ITS L24 with Rebello-prepped E31).

Got a garage-mate today! More to come later...

I'm seeing a trend here...

Aluminum exhaust piping? How about Inconel: http://www.primarydesigns.co.uk/index.php/standard/exhausts

Nice! That long taper is what gives you the nice, flat torque curve.

Sounds like your airbox is undersized.

We contemplated doing the same on our FSAE car at the time but ended up keeping a fixed length and tuning the intake and exhaust to the desired RPMs. Our engine didn't really have the RPM range to require movable trumpets. I would have loved to see that FSAE car!

Long term issues? The pump should last longer and operate quieter, if you want to call those "issues"...

Very nice, looking forward to dyno results!

My thoughts exactly. I'm not a fan of E85 and would not build a performance engine based on that fuel, especially considering its existance is relatively unstable comparted to "normal" gasoline. I hope E85 gets killed off, personally. Get rid of E10, too. I'm not too up on the MN47, but if it puts comp at 11:1 I'd avoid it for anything besides a pure race engine. I assume on dished pistons, the compression ratio would be more within the realm of possibilities. With that said, I see people putting a single spec like comp ratio (or any other given single parameter) on a pedestal all the time. Valve size, header size, R/S ratio, rod length, blah blah blah. It's a system, so it must be treated that way. Frankly, make "enough" compression (>8:1) while minimizing chances of knock and you'll be fine. This is not an all out race engine where we're sqeezing every last 0.1hp that we're talking about here. As for small valves vs. big valves, I'll stand by my statement of "big as possible with minimal shrouding". The only reason for having smaller valves is if your engine is designed for just low-end torque (narrower intake and port runners, low-rpm cam profile) therefore not needing larger valves. That's the case with your SBC truck engines. Valve size is the effect, rather than the cause. It's the classic causation =/= correlation... situation. From this, I hope that one can deduce that just installing bigger valves won't gain you a ton without changing the system. To accompany larger valves, it is beneficial to work the ports, intake and exhaust runners, cam profile, etc.

They're still available new. When I bought mine, it was maybe $60 a set. MSA stocks them, among others.

Gotta pay to play. Play takes payment in the form of time or money, but usually both.

IMO, there is a "best" and that would be to put in as large of a valve as possible without shrouding (unshrouding the chamber helps). This is what an engine designer attempts to maximize. I struggle to believe that just going to larger valves will inherently hurt low end torque. The thing is, smaller engines don't need as large of a valve to breathe. This is the main reason why you see the larger valves on the 2.8 heads and smaller on the 2.4.

Time for some self-aggrandizement. L24 with stock cam, triples, Nissan Motorsports header to twin pipes: Since then, I've switched to EDIS and tuned the spark curve as well as gotten the carbs in a better state of tune. Hopefully, I'll get a new baseline done sometime soon.

Wow, those are very stiff. Hope you have some nice dampers and your chassis has some reinforcement if you plan to run those rates!

You poor guys with your snow! I drove the Z to work yesterday... Let me know how the tach adapter works out, I was planning on constructing the small diode circuit described in the MJLJ install guide. Seems like it works for others, I just haven't gotten to doing it yet (like so many other projects). One thing at a time...

Looks like you chose a good shop to work with! Looking good.

I guess it looks yellow-er in person! At least you've got a speedo to judge speed from. Until recently, my speedo hasn't worked (turned out to be a broken cable) and my tach doesn't work (haven't set up the tach circuit yet after installing Megajolt). Speed was judged purely on engine and road noise. Since replacing the speedo cable, I've got a working speedometer but it shows that I'm going much faster than I really am. Maybe that's a good thing...