Six_Shooter

The Nissan spec turbo he had didn't physically have wheels installed, so he could not measure them.

That's what I said, out loud even. LOL

Thanks, I read through it and makes me want to continue with the compound set-up even more. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. BTW Tony, I can read just fine, it's funny how after I do the math, you change the subject, like you always do when you're proven wrong with math and/or verifiable data. Yet you never provide any of your own, only keep harping on this Electramotive car from the '80s, using anecdotes and stories of what people said, and this is somehow supposed to prove something. I guess the big difference here is that I'm not afraid to take a chance and possible waste time and/or money on something that may or may not work as expected, and you know what? Even if it doesn't perform as expected, I will be able to say I tried it, and learned something from it, instead of solely listening to other people who repeat something they were told from someone else.

Have you been to the Ontario Z car site? The picture looks familiar...

That's only just over 225 width, maybe 235 tire. I run 225 width tires all around on my car currently, and would prefer a wider tire, personally. I think if you look back through this thread you'll find a lot of people are running 225 and 235 width front tires.

Do you have a link to the thread? I can't seem to locate it, even searching for threads only started by you.

The resonance doesn't happen between the valve and the throttle plate, but the valve and the end of the runner. Think of it this way, when an ITB is wide open, the length of the runner is from the end of the inlet "trumpet" to the valve, the throttle plate itself is not an influence here. Placing the throttle plates as close as possible to the valves can help with throttle transitions is why people will use ITBs, but once they go wide open, they act just the same as an intake system that uses a single TB and plenum (provided that the plenum is sufficiently large enough to feed the engine with an appropriate amount of air).

Different sanctioning bodies have different rules for placement and activation, check with the sanctioning body you plan yo run in. I.E NHRA has rules about how far away from the battery that the switch needs to be within. This means that the switch location is dictated by battery location, and not necessarily convenience. They also have rules about whether the switch is activated by a twisting motion, or a push/pull type and how it would need to be activated, or deactivated in that regard.

735 HP does not equal, nor exceed 1100 HP. Assuming 20% drivetrain loss, that's still only 882 HP, still missing 218 HP. 'Hazing tires for an extended period of time' does not equate verifiable numbers. According to my slide rule, it takes about 630 WHP to move 3000 lbs (Curb weight of ZXT is just over 2800 lbs) to the 1/4mile (just slightly longer than than 400 m). Lets round up to 650 WHP, now lets assume 20% drivetrain loss, that's 780 HP, still quite shy of your supposed 1100 HP. All of these claims seem to be based not on scientifically reproduce-able data, but on seat of the pants, or making assumptions. In the circles I run, I can't use seat of the pants, non-quantifiable stories, to show what has been or can be done. So there's the math, where does this extra 320 HP come from? That a whole 'nother turbocharged L-series on top. An 800 HP L-series is much more believable, attainable and if memory serves has been near duplicated in street L-series engines in recent years. From everything I have seen, read about and learned about the L-series design, this is about the limit for available air flow, using an L-series head. I haven't seen enough data on "exotic" DOHC, multivalve designed L-series heads, which are either impossible or near impossible to get a hold of, to know if these designs would make enough of a difference to push the power envelope even farther. Getting back to the original topic: Why do you always have to shoot down ideas? I plan to compound charge one of my engines (not an L-series BTW, and because my mind IS open. ), hopefully in the not too distant future (lack of time and money due to school is the hold up right now), even though I could spend more money on a newer turbocharger Garret GT series) that have been shown to spool quickly, and support unheard of power levels for the physical size, but this doesn't men that compound charging is automatically a waste of time, or not something to attempt any longer. The same argument has been made for single vs twin turbos, yet you still see twin turbos being installed in all forms of vehicles, from OEM to high HP race race cars. but I guess all of these people are doing it wrong too... If someone wants to try something like this, why not give them the information they need to succeed, instead of calling them stupid for trying something a little different?

The resonance happens between the valve and the open plenum. The volume of air in the plenum, whether it is a defined space like many intakes or infinitely large, like ITBs with no filters, the resonance acts the same. Generally speaking, long runners promote bottom end torque, while shorter runners promote high end power. Engines with shorter runners generally tend to rev higher, or rev easier, not solely due to the intake runner though, it just helps with the rest of the components to promote that ability. This is why many engines over the years have used two runner lengths that switch at certain RPM and/or plenum vacuum point. You should take a look at what some drag racers of the '50's and '60's were doing. Some runner lengths were measured in feet, not inches. lol

I too would like to see more evidence of these 1100 HP L-series of the early '80s. You know a time when making 800 HP from a BBC was very impressive, forced induction or not. I'm not saying that it's impossible, I've just never seen any evidence of it, and have not seen anyone repeat such a feat in more recent years with more available technology and know-how.

I wouldn't pay anymore than about 4K for it, even though I know other people would. It needs a lot of work, and some of the things I see in the pictures makes me wonder what else is going on, like the screws through the bottom of the door panels, new doors (or at the very least weld up the holes and repair), new door panels. The paint was done poorly, since it's flaking off on many areas of the car. Some of the things mentioned it needs can get pricey, or at the very least time consuming to replace. Looks like a great start, but that's what it is, a start, not a driver yet.

Nice!

While I haven't used the Nissan version of the T5 that came in the 280ZX, I have used the T5 from the GM S-series behind a couple engines, and also driven a number of fox body Mustangs and Camaros that were equipped with T5s. If I owned one of those other vehicles, I would swap a Nissan trans in there instead of the T5. The ones I drove, usually didn't like shifting above 6000 RPM, and they were weak. My ZX 5 speed has taken more abuse than my T5s ever did. I would imagine that the Nissan version of the T5 to be very similarly designed and built.

I had a similar issue of 1/2 shift grinding, popping out of second gear, especially on decel. Eventually, after getting pissed at a stupid driver, I pulled away from a stop and yanked on the gear shift, which finally revealed my problem. I ended up not having first or second gear and was SUPPOSED to go to a lapping day the next day. I was actually on my way to a friend's house to load up the car on a trailer. Anyway, after losing first and second gear, I went home, and left the car alone for a bit, it was fall after all. When I pulled the trans apart, I found the 1/2 shift fork to be broken, at the point it wrapped around the shift shaft (Sorry I don't recall the proper name right now). It broke in such a way that the roll pin was still able to push on the shift fork, but the split went right through this area. I believe that the fork was split for a long time, but not completely broken until that day. I could see an area on the shift fork where the roll pin rests against that was smoothed out from the roll pin rubbing against it, or an extended period of time. My fork was also aluminium. The trans was pulled from a 1981 280ZX. I ended up getting a 4 speed trans to swap the cast iron (cast steel?) shift forks from. I did both the 1/2 and 3/4 forks. I had to drill the roll pin holes larger in the 4 speed forks, due to the larger roll pins used in the later transmissions. The transmission had never shifted so smoothly, or so, I'll call it deliberately, like it WANTED to shift, not just doing what it's being told. I run Synchromesh. I don't shift at 7300, but I do shift 6200 to 6300 regularly. If you have the trans out again, take a good look at the 1/2 shift fork and make sure it's not splitting, or even flexing on the shift.

I used the Ford 2.3 Turbo on one of my old V6 builds, a 3.2L. It made 250HP (dyno), though it may have been a little fuel limited, this did seem to be the limit of these turbos air flow wise. I felt that it was a bit small for my application, but thought it might work well on an engine less than 2.8L.

As usual, people are missing the point completely. It's real easy to use a large single to make impressive single point (peak) HP numbers, no real science to that. The idea here is not just about making huge power, though that is usually part of the equation, but the main idea is to be able to get a wide torque curve, while having the ability to support high HP output. Contrary to what people believe the small turbo does not become a restriction, it does become a pressure multiplier. With the increased inlet pressure, it flows more than it would if the inlet pressure were lower. I agree with TimZ, compression ratio is a very small part of an engine's ability to spool a turbocharger, if it has any effect at all. The volume of air pumped, along with the heat has a much larger effect, since compression ratio is really only key in the combustion process, not the ability of the engine to pump air. Regardless of compression ratio, a 2.8L engine will pump 2.8L of air every 2 revolutions, if it had 8:1 SCR, or 20:1 SCR. The volume of air, heat of that air, along with the pressure differential between the inlet of the turbine and the outlet of the turbine is what causes the turbine to spool.

Compound can work very well on a gas engine, broadening the torque curve. I've been doing a lot of research on this, since I'm seriously considering it on another engine I plan to build. I also want to run enough boost, or better yet flow to support 600+ HP on a small displacement engine, but want to lower the boost threshold as much as possible, when I smash the loud pedal. The only way you're truly going to know how well it will work is to build it yourself and not listen to ney-sayers.If I listened to them, I wouldn't have successfully built half the stuff I have.

That is yet another option. What can be done is use the non turbo dizzy, and use a GM HEI 7 or 8 pin module, this provides both trigger to the ECM for RPM, and allows the ECM to control timing. The non turbo, electronic dizzy ('74+) can trigger the GM HEI module just fine. I ran this set-up, though it was with a GM ECM for a few months, before getting my DIS swap finished. I believe the MS could also take the signal directly from the non turbo dizzy, then drive the coil directly, with the correct mods, but I haven't looked into too deeply, but I know other applications have been run this way. You would want to lock the non turbo dizzy, so that any and all advance is controlled by the computer, and no mechanical advance is added.

LOL, "The dizzy was 180* off." I enjoy reading that every time. The dizzy doesn't care which way the rotor is pointing, when cylinder #1 is at TDC, just use that tower for your #1 cylinder and install the rest of the wires accordingly, going around the dizzy cap in the correct direction. The only reason there is a common point for the #1 to be set is for reference to an FSM.

Using an MS, there are ways to trigger the ignition without using the Turbo dizzy, and control spark from the MS.

I was also going to suggest the cigarette lighter trick. I've used it on a couple vehicles. My preferred method is to use a proper transponder immobilizer. Passive arming, passive disarming (key fob just needs to be within a few inches of the receiver ring), nothing extra to do when you get in the car, nothing to forget to engage, nothing to forget to dis engage after a long hiatus from the car (Say like over the winter). Most systems also include an LED that is an effective deterant on it's own.

Why wouldn't you use a resistor and diode combo? Diode on the turn signal wire, and resistor (some value that reduces the light, but still allows it to be on), in the park light wire. Alternatively, you can use a simple relay to allow the lights to be on full, and then flash with the turn signal. I started with this idea to turn my front marker lights into turn signals (Since my front turn signal marker lights are mounted low and in the "vents" of my MSA type 2 air dam), but then was able to go without using a relay, due to retaining the incandescent bulb and realizing the light bucket is isolated from the fender. Off the top of my head: 85 to parking light 86 to turn signal circuit 87 to battery 87a open 30 to the light. This works by using the ground that will be on the parking light circuit to turn the relay on while turn signal is activated. The 12V from the battery is then passed to the LED as the parking light signal is pulsed. When you turn the parking lights on, the relay is also activated by sourcing the ground on turn signal wire, and feeds the 12V from the battery to the LED. When the parking lights are on, and the turn signal turns on, the relay will turn off, causing the LED to flash, but when the turn signal is on, say in the rear, the front will be off at that point. The flash would be inverted, but as far as someone looking it, would be flashing normally.

If you ever want to sell that '73 FSM, let me know, I'd love to have one to go along with my '73.

I must see these wheels in person. Luckily I only live about an hour away from T.O. Are you going to have the car ready enough for ZFest in August?