Six_Shooter

Looks good.

es it's that simple. The only thing to be careful about is the current needed to run those fog lights. Most fog lights use a relay and large wire to transfer power directly from the battery to the fog lights, controlled by a lower current from a switch. You may need to do the same, using the existing reverse light wire to control a relay that is fed by an appropriate sized wire for the current needed.

I beleive that car belongs to a member.

That's what I'm wondering. The very nice thing with the tool posted in the first post is that there are witness marks that will help with cutting each bend to be the exact right length, to make the perfectly flowing and smooth headers/exhaust.

According to the "Z virtual tape measure", ther eis only about 7" difference between the bottom of the firewall and the top of the frame rail. Hmm, it looks like the distance between the bottom of the head and the bottom of the oil pan might not be as much as I remembered, though it's not explicity defined. http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f380/rontyler/imprezaenginesize.jpg' alt='imprezaenginesize.jpg'> I still think that a frame rail could be built below the heads, and possibly above (this is loosly the same idea as a motorcycle, where the frame surrounds the sides of the engine on many bikes. Some use a removable lower member, to allow "easy" removal of the engine).

They probably suggest the TH400, because that's what the customer was using, so they know it works with that combination. It would also work equally as well with a TH350, and 700R4, hell throw the 4L60, 4L60E and 4L80E in there as well. I could see it working with SBC pattern manuals as well, as I'm sure there is an adaptor between the Subie crank and the what looks to be a SBC flexplate, so you could likely bolt a SBC flywheel onto that, which now opens the possibility of trannies WIDE open, Liberty, Borg Warner (TKO? ), among other VERY strong trannies. Lenco? haha, that would be sweet, clutchless manual FTW! This is the angle I'll likely have to go with my proposed engine, since I will be looking at using a TKO (at this point), which doesn't offer the bellhousing pattern that I need. Adapting anything to a GM or Ford pattern will open up more possible tranny optiuons than you could believe. There just aren't too many AWD combinations available, at least not in manual versions using the SBC bellhousing pattern. I know AWD is not in the scope of this project, but I just wanted to mention that tidbit. Steering would be one of the easier parts to deal with in this conversion. If it were me doing this, I wouldn't try to go over the engine, I'd go under the driver side head. Without setting the engine in place and only approximating the hight of that head, seeing as the centerline of the engine will be higher than a SBC conversion or even the original Datsun I6, using the original scooby oil pan. You could likely get away with lowering the firewall end of the steering column, so that the end is placed below the bottom of the head. The other end of the column would come up a bit but a spacer and the use of a smaller steering wheel could place it back where it's comfortable, using the original steering column. I think I'd nix the original column though and go for something with tilt, like a GM column from a late '80s or early '90s Cavalier (might be a bit short), or similar years S-series pick-ups. F-bodies of similar vintage would also allow you to shorten the steering column to the exact length needed, as I'm sure those would be a bit long. I'm almost wondering as I sit here, if the bottom of the head might actually be above the frame rails, and even less modification might be neededs than previously thought. IIRC the CL hight difference was around 4" between a Scooby (EJ series was it?) and a SBC. How much hight is there between where the bottom of the pan would safely sit and the top of the frame rail? I'm sure that if the clearance isn't already there, that it might only take dropping the frame rail a few inches, behind the crossmember attachment point, back to the firewall, with the TC rod attachment point being sunk into the frame rails (to keep the same relative geomtry in the existing suspension). I would do this with new tube, of course, just to make that clear, might as well replace the entire frame rail if you're going that far, but just thinking about possible fitment solutions. I could see that working for the 4cyl versions, the 6 might be too long to keep the stock style crossmember.

These are pictures of my Uncles T-bucket that my Grandfather and I are putting back together. These are from last summer: Overview (also one of my favorite pictures):

Yeah I was looking at those a little while ago, and if they were half the price I'd have no problem buying them, but they are just a bit too much for me to justify buying them now, unless I start getting into header fabrication.

Very cool to see these renderings. I've thought about a few ideas that are actually in that model, or very close to. The front end, more specifically grill and bumper area needs to change drastically. The rest is very good, but all could use a tweak. It looks like the idea is to widen the car, and maybe even shorten the wheelbase over the original 240. Overall I like it.

Those are pretty hot, and I usually don't like wheels with large flat areas.

Sounds like you might need a smaller alternator pulley to get the stator RPM higher.

How ironic.... I just searched for the Delco alt swap info last night and came accross this thread, now there's been a new reply in it not 24 hours later. I talked with my alternator guy (yes, I have an "alternator guy", since I build a lot of electrically taxing audio systems), and he's going to set me up with a newer CS alternator, rated at 130 amps peak, and said I will have about 100 amp idle charge. I'll document the install and results. He said he could build the alternator to be a higher peak output, but I really don't need it for this car, since the audio system will be small. I just noticed last night after installing a volt gauge in my dash in place of the ammeter, that the charge voltage was low (13V after a good rev at idle, and peaked at about 14V, at about 2500 engine RPM). For the EFI swap I want a SOLID 13.6V at least at idle, and 14.4V above idle.

I would also have to say the 510 is not Tod's Compare these two pictures: Why would he remove the passenger side mirror? The stickers in the window and the windsheild banner? There are a few similarities though, like the spook (did the 510 get a "spook"? )the wheels, and the roll bar all look similar. I'm not going to mention that one pair of cars looks more orange than the other because I've seen pictures of Tod's 240 that made it look orange, where most magazine pictures make it look more red, lighting does some strange things. I think I might look at getting this magazine, it looks interesting. Check out the home site, loads of information, and some pretty sweet rides that I would expect to be in forth-coming issues. http://japanesenostalgiccar.com/

Unless he's changed the 240 drastically (and uglied it up), I would have to say it's not. The 510 is too difficult to see in the background to say if it's his or not.

You would need an auxilary input adaptor, supplied from aftermarket companies, such as PAC ( www.pac-audio.com ), Soundgate ( www.soundgate.com ) USA-spec ( www.usaspec.com ), Peripheral ( www.peripheralelectronics.com ), PIE ( www.pie.net ) and I'm sure there are a couple others. These companies offer adaptors that will plug into the back of the radios and allow an auxilary or even an iPod connection into the factory radios. The only thing is they are generally not cheap, I don't think I've seen one that works well for less than $125. You could take that same $125 plus a little more and get a nice aftermarket deck that will have better sound quality and a more stable connection to the suxilary/iPod input.

I didn't see this posted, but figured this would go along with this thread: I really like the sound too.

No. Fuel line won't last. Best is to use either brake line (steel line) or braided stainless hose (AN), for the feed. For the drain, there isn't fuel injection line large enough to do the job, at leats not that you're going to find at your local parts store. The drain should be at least 1/2" in diameter (-8) I prefer to use 5/8 (-10) or larger. Here you can use tube, or oil grade rubber hose. Or better yet, braided stainless again. The braided stainless is probably the most expensive route, but will provide the easiest hose to use that will not kink, and will survive for a long time.

Hmm, I think if I was trying to save the drums, I would have removed the axle and stub axle nut, then removed the stub axle and drum together, to then be able to support the drum, while applying pressure (hammer) to the stub axle itself, to force the seperation.

Look up "safety wire". I know it's used on dirt track cars, to secure bolts and nuts to keep them from backing out. I've also seen drill jigs for drilling nust and bolts yourself. Last time I seen a kit, it was offered by Bicknell Racing.

I'm sure you've read some sites about E85, I can get a few links from a guy I know that is running E85 in his turbocharged V6 Cavalier with great results. There was quite a bit of discussion about the corrosiveness of E85 and how it might attack and possibly ruin the stock components on his car. He performed a 24 hour, or maybe it was 48 hour test of placeing the suspect components (fuel pump, fuel rail, an injector, and the flexible fuel lines IIRC), into a bucket submerged in E85, prior to the change over. He saw no effects that made him worried and so he started with the E85 and tuning for it. I believe he's ran it for about 2 years now, and hasn't seen any problems with any of those stock components. FYI, the fuel pump and hard parts of the flexible lines are stainless, and the fuel rail is aluminium. Getting into the aluminium discussion, I have seen talk about the aluminium needing to be anodized, which seems to be false. The fuel rail in question on the Cavalier is/was not anodized, and has held up fine. Other discussion I have read would also support this. I'm sure the grade of aluminium has an effect on what will and won't survive with E85. Unfortunatly I don't know the grade of the stock fuel rail, nor the aftermarket fuel line that is offered from Russel, Earls, Aeroquip, etc. As far as sizing goes. You can have too large of a fuel line, if you're pump and return are not up to providing sufficient flow, pressure and bypassing abilities. The regulator plays a part in this as well, but that gets into a more in depth discussion. From what you have said, I would probably go 1/2" now, and save needing to do it later. You may not need all that fuel that a 1/2" line will provide, in fact you'd rarely need that much fuel, in a street car. At cruise and idle, even part throttle accel, the fuel requirments of most engines is actually quite small. I've actually seen a large line being a problem in getting some engines to idle and cruise properly, but with a proper regulator, return line and even where it enters the fuel tank for the return can all have an effect on how well the rail is bypassed with the un-used fuel. Some cars even need to go as far as using a fuel cooler, or using a secondary bypass that bleeds off fuel before it gets anywhere near the engine compartment, to be circulated back into the tank. The reason for this is because the higher the flow rate of the fuel, or circulation of, the more it heats up. As that fuel gets nearer the engine compartment and especially in the fuel rail, quite a bit of heat is transfered to the fuel itself, and is then carried back to the fuel tank/cell. When the flow rate is smaller, the fuel will sit in the tank/cell longer allowing it to cool. This can also been seen as vapour lock. "I just upgraded my fuel system to a huge x big system and now I can't start it when it's warm" is a pretty common problem when some parts of the system were not thought out well. Also I don't know what you're final goals for power are, but you might want to consider a dual fuel system. Two pumps, two feed lines and two returns (or one really large return), and run on only one pump on a "smaller" feed line, and have the second fuel pump come on at higher RPM/boost/nitrous activation/etc. From what I've read there have been a few members here that have done this with success, at least the two pump deal, I haven't read too much about the details of the plumbing of the system. I don't recall how much power the guy with the Cavalier was making, I want to say low 300ish HP, with a 3/8" feed and 5/16" return, so take that into consideration when designing your system. I feel he was maxing out his fuel delivery though.

Ok, I've gone through a bunch and most suck, but this one had me snicker part way through: This one might be a little better:

I have a design in mind that is similar but adds more radial bracing that might actually work better in a curb incident, since I'm thinking about getting one of these air dams.

If I read the slips right (correct order), the TTV8 car was still faster AND quicker than Rips, just that the driver was sleeping at the lights and got eliminated because of that. 1+ second RT is SLOW. Still, very impressive, looking at the build sheet. I don't believe Chris Chow is "fastest" or "quickest" anymore, IIRC there's a few stock suspension mustangs running mid 7s.

Sweet looking rims. Personally I would match the tire diameters, like you have with your first selection of tires sizes to be within .1" since you have found tires that will allow it. In theory this will keep braking biasing more closely matched to what a same size all around will be. The car will sit more level, keeping the suspension geometry all in check, caster angles, and suspension reaction will remain constant. Now that being said, I highly doubt that you would find any difference in braking, or drivability of the car with the 1/4" hight difference between either end of the car. (1/2 total diameter difference /2 for radius difference). You would probably also find that the actual attitude difference in the car would end up being less than 1/4", because of the way the suspension will settle. So, yes IMO you're making a bigger deal that it really is, but like I said earlier, since you have found a combination of tire sizes are very close in tire diamters I would lean towards that set.

Welch plugs /debate