Scottie-GNZ

What's wrong with the turbo? So the compressor is as a tad large . I sure hope he has something supporting the weight of that turbo. The other one I posted obviously was not SS. Boy, Jimbo, you not asking for much are you? Luckily, I think I have what you want. My engine could have been slammed up against the firewall like John Scott's neat V-6 was but it was intentionally not so there was room for the DP and being a V-6, the front of the engine is about the same position as a JTR. Having said that, I do not know if there is room to do as I did, but maybe with a little massaging of the pass footwell, it could work. First thing you will notice is that the GN turbo is in the same position as the one you posted but 90* to the one I posted. The DP is 3" SS and is now wrapped, which makes a world of difference for underhood temps. HTH.

Seems we have genuine interest here and I am on a very boring 3-hr telecon, so I started doing some digging . I found a link that has pics that come close to how I see it being done. As I looked at these shots, I could imagine the turbo being moved forward of the head and in to provide more clearance on the sides. That turbine is HUGE and since you probably would not be running a ton of boost, the external wastegate is optional and not having it makes the plumbing less complicated. To make the install complete, the compressor would be re-clocked so that the compressor outlet points to about 8-o'clock with a 90* turn forward pass the radiator into the FMIC, out the other side of the FMIC pass the radiator and into the TB. You then need a 3" pipe on the same side of the compressor for the K&N filter. SBC Single-turbo [ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Scottie-GNZ ]

Jim, cannot find it in my stack of notes. Do a search on "NEAPCO".

Excellent points, Tim. This single-turbo lag "thing" is going to take a while to go away. Regarding a single turbo setup for a V-8Z, I have advocated the GN design but it seems maybe I did not illustrate it well enough, so I will take another shot. The first pic here shows an aftermarket GN header. To envision how it works, the bottom header is the driver side with the front of the engine on the left and the top header is the pass side with the front of the engine on the right. From the drivers side, there is a crossover pipe that connects to the rear of the pass side header and the exhaust flows forward into the turbo mounted at the front of the pass side head. The next pic shows the pass side on my car and you can clearly see the header flow towards the front. You then have several options to route the DP. A JTR Z has lots of room forwardof the engine for the plumbing and the plumbing could actually duplicate mine. Maybe I am simplying things, but that seems like a fairly simple header to make for a good fabricator.

Scotty, if you are running an adjustable FPR, then here is something you might try. The SVO injs are rated at 36psi pressure. First make sure the FPR is set to 36psi. The fuel pressure is best checked and adjusted with the signal line off, covering the line with your finger to keep a good idle. Of course the fuel pressure will drop when the line is connected. Those injs are good for 325hp at a conservative 80% duty cycle. Since you are not making 325hp, yet , you should be able to adjust the pressure down to 34psi and see if that makes a difference. You should still have enough fuel at full boost. This is not necessarily the best way to correct the problem, but unless you can find someone who truly knows how to recalibrate the AFM, you are faced with one of the prime reasons for getting a programmable system.

Thanks, Mike. I just had to pass the drill trought the hole to get rid of the threads so the bolts could pass through it. Should be OK for a 7/16" heli-coil. I saw Dan's setup before he installed and need to make a point to check it out closely.

Like Stony and Z-Gad, everyone has their opinions and choices. A wing like that "looks" a lot more purposeful on a 375hp Z with G-nose and flares than it does on a 4-dr, automatic Civic.

This got buried in another post and I wanted you to respond. The 11.5" setup sounds like the way I will probably be going soon to match the new rears. I currently have the 82-83 front calipers with 300ZX rotors and that required the spindle holes to be modified because the caliper mounting bolts screwed into the caliper bracket instead of the spindle. IOW, the spindle now has no threads. Is this a problem and am I screwed? Is it possible to retap the spindle and open up the hole slightly that the bolt passes through on the caliper or caliper bracket? Also, the 71s have a very narrow hat, does that change? If it does, that is actually good for me, but I just need to know how much. If there is a less costly alternative to get bigger than 11" brakes, let me know.

Mike, the 11.5" setup sounds like the way I will probably be going soon to match the new rears. I currently have the 82-83 front calipers with 300ZX rotors and that required the spindle holes to be modified because the caliper mounting bolts screwed into the caliper bracket instead of the spindle. IOW, the spindle now has no threads. Is this a problem and am I screwed? Is it possible to retap the spindle and open up the hole slightly that the bolt passes through on the caliper or caliper bracket? Also, the 71s have a very narrow hat, does that change? If it does, that is actually good for me, but I just need to know how much.

I am with Jim on this one. Research that swap carefully and make sure you understand ALL the costs. If you try to save a few $$$ on the engine, the swap WILL end up slower than a slightly tweaked Rotary-powered car. Do not underestimate the power of that turbo Rotary, 275hp at the wheel, stock. One other thing, I believe you would also be stuck with a 4.10: final drive but Jim can confirm that. Jim, Z-Gad came over last night and we went and checked a gorgeous 300+hp Miata. This guy has a ton of $$$ in this car but it is well set up. He got to ride in the "Patrick" car and believe he was duly impressed despite it running way too rich with the 600cc injs.

Reason why he wants a different color is because that one is transparent .

I threw together a quick and dirty page for the C4 IRS install. It basically has the same info from the long posts and I did it without consideration for access speeds, picture sizes, etc. I have cable modem and a 21" monitor and everything looks and feels "normal" to me . Let me know if anyone has problem accessing it, if it takes too long to load, if the pics are too big, etc. C4 IRS Install

They are available, but do not let that current bid fool you into thinking you can get it for that price. That particular guy parts out Corvettes and will get what he wants. Last minute sniping will change that price. On the other extreme, here is a DANA44 from another Corvette parts guy. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=595000112

Curtis, thanks. I am not doing a DANA44 because I could not find one for a reasonable price and this DANA36 sort of fell in my lap. Guys are demanding around $1500 for the DANA44 and there is currently one on eBay with a "Buy It Now" of $2,000. With another $200 or so to ship, the price would have gotten out of hand. Progress Report I have decided to slow down, else I drive myself nuts waiting for parts and mods to be done. I ordered the lower strut bar and since it is custom-made, it "will be a couple of days" to make it, then a couple of days after to powdercoat it. Yep, at least 2 weeks. After that is done and I have the exact measurements for the spring, then it will be a couple more days to make that, etc. No hope of having it running before going on vacation at the beginning of Oct. In the meantime, the halfshafts and the toe adjustment rods have been narrowed and the diff is in the car on the rear hangers. I need to fab up a front x-member, pretty up the hangers, install the Spider U-joints, mod the driveshaft... Damn, then what am I going to do tomorrow? Here are the shortened axles and toe adjustment rods after 20 mins with a Scotch-Brite pad. Hangers welded in place and diff hanging from them. As much as possible, every mount point will be attached to a frame rail. A little trimming, sanding and paint needed. View from the back. Stay tuned.

Evan, I like the style of the car and after you strip out the stereo stuff, you will still be left with over 3000lbs. IOW, it is a heavy car to begin with. The car that bought the Corvette is putting it in s Starion to replace the 3.5L aluminum V-8 that is currently in it. I told him if he left the SBC basically stock, that was a mistake. Obviously there is no kit so mounts would have to be fabbed but I will help in any way I can.

I love that "Scary Bird" shot.

Guys, I hear you loud and clear and if I appear to be unconcerned about it, it is because I am. If the car decides to get freaky on me and gain say, .5 or more and my local track says I cannot run, then I have 2 choices. I either detune the car to run 11.0s and leave it at that or get serious. I have no idea how much I was losing with the "problems" I was having, but I can tell you I am no where close to maxing out the stock engine because I just do not want to run on the ragged edge. One guy I know in Miami, named Orlando , is running 10.0s @ 130+ in a 3400lb Buick with the stock bottom-end, mild home porting, a healthy cam, a huge turbo and 40# boost with a 20# launch . By my calculation, that is about 625hp. I am running 23-24# with unported heads and a much smaller turbo. I said all of that because if I decide to get serious, that is the HP range I am targeting and it would NOT be in this existing car. By now everyone should know my MO is to fund my next project by selling what I currently have. This means one of you LUCKY folks would get to buy the GNZ chassis with the Vette IRS and that would help fund a back-half, track-only, lightweight GNZ. That should put me in the 9.0 range and be a little more competitive. I might even be able to talk Ron into selling his chassis . Ironically, not all local tracks enforce the rules. There are 2 other GNZs (in ID and PA)running the stock Z suspension with NISMO 3.36 R&P and LSD. One is in the 10.80s and the other has a best of 10.59 but breaks axles as I hear it. Both run around 130mph because they have heads, cam and bigger turbos. Like I said, I might have to make a decision here soon and I do not like the idea of going slower Regardless, this sure is a fun engineering exercise and I just love the testing part [ September 01, 2001: Message edited by: Scottie-GNZ ]

John, the following is a discussion on the NHRA website regarding this issue in the NHRA rulebook. quote: E.T. Brackets A long-standing rule that requires any car with independent rear suspension (IRS), weighing over 2000 pounds, and running 10.99 or quicker to replace the IRS with a conventional rear-end housing has been modified. For 1999, only those IRS designs which utilize a lower control arm only (like a 1963 to 1982 Corvette) will have to comply with the above requirement. If the suspension utilizes both upper and lower control arms, the IRS may be retained regardless of weight or e.t. Note that it specifically says 63-82, 82 being the last year of the C3. The suspension was redesigned in 84 for the C4. But to be honest, I am really only concerned about the rules the local FL tracks enforce because that is where I will do 99% of my racing. If I ran in a sanctioning body like NHRA, I would not be competitive in the class they would place me and if I intended to, it certainly would not be with my current stock engine, trans and street tires. I would get serious and spend some real money to build a chassis like Ron's, keep it under 2400lbs, then it does not take $much$ to massage 650hp out of a Buick turbo with a girdle. I will be tickled if I can get 10.80 out of the car as it is.

Sorry the deal is not as sweet as it sounded. Sometimes it is just pure ignorance. He might have actually thought he bought a Spearco or was "sold" one. Chances are the turbo is stock but it is hard to tell from just looking at the exterior. A stock L28T t3 can have the turbine wheel upgraded and a GN compessor wheel stuffed into the stock housings. Looks bone stock but makes a potent upgrade up to 300hp+ if you have the rest of the system to support that HP. He is the one in a pickle so make him an offer and haul it away. Get it running and see what you got and then take it from there. Good luck.

Hope I remember how to put this puppy back together . Now that it is apart, the narrowing processing begins. This weekend I plan to hang the diff and as you can see I already have the hangers made. One is on the floor behind the driveshaft and the other is on the tri-bar on lower right of the pic, pretty much exactly how it will be mounted. The horizantal part gets welded to the frame rail just below the strut tower (A little sheetmetal trimming is needed) and the eyelet of the tri-bar comes up between the vertical pieces. Trial fit, drill the hole, round off bottom edges, weld, paint, voila. Weighed the individual components and it is not as light as I first thought. It is only 80lbs lighter than the OEM not 100lbs

quote Clint, I will probably never buy a DFI, but what about makes it give better fuel control?

DRAX, after experiencing 1st-hand what pressurizing the oil pan can do, I ended going with the Check Valve from ATR. It is part# CV101 and is $19.95 and although I did not ask them, I wonder if I will ever have to change it. It is a direct replacement for the PCV but I cannot guarantee the od of the valve is the same so you might have to find a different grommet.

Boy, Les, you jumped into one that I do not know will ever be settled. Each user has their own preferences, biases and opinions and too many of those opinions are based on hearsay and the infamous turbo lag stigma. Here is my bias, er, $.02 . S-chargers have better off-line acceleration. I say yes, in general, but not as a rule. The problem with turbos is usually a lack of understanding of the technology and turbo systems that are not configured and/or tuned correctly. People buy used turbos or generic turbos w/o understanding how their engine will perform with it. With a turbo, just like a carb, bigger is not always better. The neat thing about a turbo is that there are 2 parts to it and you can go "half-bigger" . Another problem, especially those w/o programmable systems, is the use of large injectors or high fuel pressure to satisfy fuel demand at high boost. There is a high probability that the mixture will be too rich at low RPMs, resulting in LAAAGGGG. I will try to be modest here, but I use my setup as an example of how well a turbo system can perform off the line. I 60' better with a turbo and DRs than almost all s-charged cars, with slicks, that are in my ET bracket and like Darius' awesome s-charged hybrid, I will fry street tires at 50mph. S-charged cars will get better gas mileage. Hmmm, I do not know about that one. Everyone will agree that at any speed or RPM, a s-charger has parasitic loss. A turbo cruising off-boost is going to get the mileage of a low-compression, low-cammed NA. Given the same engine and state of tune, I have to wonder.

Scotty, if any responses appear to be "crisp" , it is because people are trying to guide you away for doing something destructive. The majority of turbo "failures" is the result of mis or no understanding of the basic principles. Speaking of airflow, here is one that folks are not aware of but I hope sinks in when dealing with forced induction. For every bar (14+psi) of boost, a turbo engine is capable of ingesting twice its rated volume. In other words, a 2.8L turbo engine is capable of forcing 5.6L of volume in its cylinders. Since the cylinder volume did not expand, then it is obvious that the volume is compressed. Now, add to that the compression of a 4-stroke engine and ignite it and that is a massive explosion which explains the ability of a small displacement turbo engine to make such massive torque/power. Think about that and now imagine the actual compression ratio . That is why reducing heat and making sure the turbo engine under high boost has the fuel it needs is so critical.

Scotty, assuming you are going to get a new or rebuilt turbo, talk to the turbo manufacturer and let them spec one out for your intended use. Personally, if your goal is mid to hi-11s, spend the cam money on something else. You can go a long way with the stock cam and heads. Just as or more important is the programmable system, traction, I/C, traction, DP & exhaust and TRACTION. Oh, and in case I missed it, you have to address traction. Pointless in spending money for a cam to get you .3 when you are losing .5 because the car will not hook. PLEASE, tell me you are budgeting for brakes and suspension.