Six_Shooter
-
Posts
1471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Six_Shooter
-
-
If you can get the air filter right out of the engine bay that will drop your intake temps significantly. I had my air filter in almost the exact same spot as you for a long time, back before I built and installed my IC. I don't recall the actual intake temp numbers but I do remember that moving the air filter outside of the engine bay dropped my intake temps by about 20* F.
For some reason this is the only picture I can find of where my filter is now.
-
I didn't find a thread like this in this forum, so lets get one going.
I love seeing "oddball" swaps. I have one planned for my car, unfortunately due to being in school it likely won't happen for a while.
So post what you have and even ones that are not yours but you find.
If you can post details of the swap, that would be even better.
This thread might help with people looking for an "Other Engine" swap for their own Z.
-
-
Fair enough.
-
I'm using the 13109 on my Turbo L28, a friend of mine has been using a 13101 for over a year (maybe two now) on his daily beaten '71 Cutlass (with a custom EFI system), another friend just installed a 13101 on his Supra, and other people I know have used various (Aeromotive) regulators without any issue. :shrug:
I really don't see the falling off of fuel pressure as an issue anyway. Typically in an EFI system the fuel system is primed as the key is turned on to supply fuel for start up, anyway. Even if the fall of pressure causes a few extra rotations at start, that's not such a bad thing, it can help with getting oil through the engine to the important parts before it lights off. -
Can you post a picture of the bulb holder front and back? I would like to see if they would be simple enough to switch to a stop, turn and tail bulb, like an 1157 type.
You can turn the side markers into signal easy enough, and you don't need an 1157.
All you need to do is move the ground wire from ground to the turn signal wire.
I had my fronts wired this way for a few years when I had an MSA type 2 air dam with some front signals in the lower vents.
This will allow the side markers to flash in sync with the front/rear signals when the parking lights are off, and will be out of sync when the parking lights are on. Many '70's, '80's and '90's GM's (I'm sure others as well) were wired this way for the front turn signals.
When I went back to a 240Z valence, I just plugged the original front marker/turn signals in, and haven't got around to re-wiring it again, so my side markers are just side markers currently.
-
You might think twice about Aeromotive. They make cool race stuff, but their regulators all leak down as soon as the pump turns off. Makes for many extra turns of the engine waiting for the rail to re-pressurize. They're not really good for daily drivers.
Edit - since I'm here, might as well say you should still pinch the return line, it could still be the pump. Unless you're really just itching to get a new regulator. And, by the way, the stock FPR's are 1:1. Not clear why that's spelled out. Anyway, good luck with it.
I've used an Aeromotive FPR on my car for 5 years, I treat it as a daily driver in the summer, I have no issues with starting the car. It also takes many 10s of minutes for the fuel pressure to drop after the engine shuts off.
I have several friends that also use Aeromotive FPRs on their cars without issue.
-
Maybe some pictures of how everything is sitting in the engine bay and trans tunnel might help see a problem.
You said you've swapped engine mounts from side to side with only minimal difference?
Does the engine look like it's sitting correctly in the engine bay? (remember the L-series leans towards the right side of the car)
You can't attach the engine to the trans in a different "clocked" position than correct, so that's not a posibility.
I'd have to go with engine mounts swapped side for side, if I had to guess at this point.
-
I had some replies quoted and such, that would have helped illustrate a better solution, but you have changed designs, for the better, mostly.
I think you were justified in being concerned. You had 2 pivot points on that mount essentially, the bushing end, which is an obvious pivot, and then the single bolt on the frame rail becomes another pivot point (on two axis) and believe would have failed with time.
You could have stayed with that same idea, by adding to the frame side mount and having it wrap around the frame rail, with another tie in point, to reduce the possibility (or eliminate) the frame side pivot point. This would have been more of a kludge than a solution, to keep the original idea going, but it would have worked. Another issue I see with that original design is drivetrain thrust (I think there's a better name for it but can't think of it right now, final exams and projects has my head all sorts of messed up lol), because you have (had) a single point on the frame rail the mount can spin about that axis, and with the other end being compliant, this would happen for sure, if not right away, it would over time. You would need to put some sort of limiting brace that will keep the drivetrain from moving forward under acceleration.
The way you are going now is infinitely better. The only change I would make is to rotate the bushing 90*. You can make a simple U shaped mount that would bolt into the frame rail if you so desired. The reason I would do this is because of the twisting forces and again the drivetrain thrust. The engine as you have the bushings now is not really being supported by a cushioned mount, well there will be that little lip on the end of the bushing, but I'm not sure it will take these kind of loads. With the bushing turned 90* the engine weight, twisting forces and shock from driving over a road or track surface are being absorbed by the bushing then. Not many people realize that engine mounts not only isolate engine vibration from the rest of the car, but also isolate the chassis from the engine by absorbing shock and vibrations from the chassis.
I like the new mounts a lot more than the original idea.
-
Let's see. You're angry there's no pictures on an unfinished rear end setup that could be the best for an s30 chassis and you're being pushy. Personally I'm waiting on it to be completed at his speed so it's done right and powder coated or the final design with all the bugs worked out. It's worth the wait. I see jacked up prices for your kit lol. Let the man breath I hated my civil engineering finals with 6+ core classes each semester for the final 2 years of college.
To the OP, good luck on finals and take pics when it's done. There's no need to rush it, the cars have been out for 44 years (older than us lol) and a little longer wait won't kill us.
Props on designing it from the wide array of parts used I can't wait to see the final product! (Now stepping off of soap box)
Who's angry?
He says this is complete, he says he's been driving with this set up for 9 months already. So there's no reason he couldn't have posted a couple pictures of this complete set-up either in the first post or shortly thereafter. The thread is at least a week old (ambiguous dates of how long ago a post was made FTL), the OP has posted 7 times since this topic started and said he would post pictures by now.
Some of us just like to see at least the parts being used, that way we can see how it might all fit together, better yet a completed assembly picture is even better. It's not being pushy, it's asking for what was promised.
I'm interested in the set-up from an engineering point of view and love to see fabrication, and parts being put together that no one in their right mind would think would ever fit and work together.
This sounds like an interesting set-up, but at this point I'd like to see some pictures, but I guess that's too much to ask according to some of you.The OP should take a marketing class before he gets out of college. Or texis300 should. This is a classic violation of product marketing principles. Tease, frustrate, alienate. It's not wrong, and it's not right, it's just how people work. This scenario is typical in bigger business - texis300 is the business manager who wants to show progress, wfritts is the engineeer with the product that's not ready but folds to pressure to release it. The customer complains, the engineer gets a poor review, ends up quitting or gets fired. The idea is panned as "it didn't work". A great idea dies on the vine.
Actually, wfritts should take a Masters level marketing class and use this thread as a case study. Probably get an A.
Not criticizing, just an impartial observation. Kind of amusing.
This ^^^
On a side note, isn't the word "ultimate" just a replacement for "best"?
-
For the record, I'm currently attending college as well (a very demanding electronics engineering program), I fully understand the lack of time.
But it takes minutes to crawl under a car and snap a few pictures to show some perspective on what is being discussed.
We're already well through page two, with no pictures, IMO something like this should have had pictures in the first post, even if improvements are planned.
I just don't understand the resistance to showing off something that is working and is supposed to be the "ultimate" set-up. Did the OP not take any pictures when putting it together originally that could be shown? -
I have one, but how soon are you looking to get it? I want to freshen it up before I sell it. Some imperfections I wouldn't be right selling it to anyone else with.
-
Are you sure you found the correct year? There are at least two different 240Z consoles.
-
didnt do it myself (came with the car)
Do you have any pictures from the side of the car. I'm considering a similar idea for mine in the future.
I've attached some older pictures of my exhaust. 3" made from mandrel bent candy canes. It fits very tight to the car.
Here is an cold day idle video:
-
Wow, you mounted those high.
-
Here are a couple pictures of my exhaust showing the O2 location. The bungs are approx 2' after the turbo. I put the WBO2 in the front bung and a NBO2 bung (Stock for the ECM I am using).
-
So why is there a lack of pictures? Have you not been running this exact set-up on your car for 9 months? If you have get under there and snap a few pictures.
-
One of the reasons the L series is not pushed that far often is an RB is available and it is considered a better platform to start with. 700 hp with an RB is easy and reliable. If you are going to spend a lot of money sometimes it is wiser to start with a platform that has greater potential.
In this same vein, it's much cheaper to get those kind of HP numbers from other engines than the L-series, which is why few people try to push the L-series. It's a dollars and cents, and even time based decisions.
I can throw any number of late model engines in an S30, for less money than it would take to make an L-series put out these kind of numbers, and probably spend less time doing so, because of the advances in technology.
Don't get me wrong, the L-series is a tough reliable engine, and 5 years after buying my S30, it still has the L-series in it that it came to me with, although I did add a turbo and EFI system to it. I bought the car with the intention of swapping out the L-series within the first two years of owning the car. I've actually had the engine to go into the car longer than I've had the car! The L-series has impressed me so much, I just can't bring myself to swap it out yet, although I'm getting REAL close to that point now, where I want more power, and just don't want to spend the time on the L28. For me one of the things I really don't like about the L-series and is a large reason why I won't bother trying to push it anymore is the fact that it's a non-crossflow design. The intake gets really heated up from the exhaust (yeah there are coatings and heat shields that can be used...) I'm also terrified of a fuel leak happening from an injector that dribbles down on the the hot exhaust. It hasn't happening in this car (knock on wood), but I have have had an O-ring fail on me in another vehicle, and filled the intake recesses with fuel. This isn't really a concern for a carb equipped L-series, but I like my EFI.
The limiting factor in any engine build is getting enough air (and fuel) in AND out of an engine. Getting this to happen with an L-series head seems to be some secret, Voodoo, or black magic. So if you can figure that out, go for it.
I just question the "period correct" thing, EFI, and arguably the addition of a turbocharger* is already taking away from being "period correct", so it seems like an odd term to use.
*Yes, I know there were S30 turbo systems in the '70s, but they were never equipped stock, and the '70's turbo systems that were available are usually much different in layout and design than what is being used today, so I'm not sure how "period correct" you can be and still meet your goals, when it comes to the turbo system.
-
I assume you will be feeding the turbo from the heater core feed?
I would do it one of two ways:
Either run it in series with the heater core, this way requires running hose back and forth behind the engine, but can work.
The other way I would do it is to T into one of the lines feeding the thermostat housing now, for the return.
I would also study how Nissan did it originally. I'm using a non water cooled turbo on my car, so I didn't need to worry about this, but back when I built a turbo V6 for my Jimmy, I T-ed into the heater core feed for the turbo feed and then returned the turbo coolant back to a fitting below the thermostat. This worked very well.
Looking at the turbo supplement for the 1981 Turbo ZX, available an xenons130.com, it looks like the turbo coolant is fed from the hose at the back of the lower rad hose inlet, that also attaches to the heater core, and then returned to the thermostat housing below the thermostat.
-
Did you purchase the proper clutch slave + clutch master cylinder for a 75 280Z? I believe they do differ depending on whether you have a 5 speed or 4 speed, as there are different throw out bearing lengths (inside transmission bell housing).
The 4 speed and 5 speed slave cylinders are the same, or at the very least they can be used interchangeably.
-
You're likely going to have cooling stability issues doing that, if you're doing what I think you're doing, you're effectively bypassing the thermostat. It will take longer for the engine to warm up, and it may never actually stabilize.
You need to return any coolant to the lower half of the thermostat housing in order to have a properly functioning cooling system.What is it that you're wanting to plumb into this fitting?
-
If memory serves me, the 71 240Z MC has the front and rear lines reversed compared to 72 and newer. The tanks are also reversed on the 71.
The Wilwood connects like the 72 and newer 240Zs.
Actually there are many posts here and over at ClassicZcar.com that deal with this issue. So keep researching.
Beermanpete gave you a solution to the line orientation and checkvalve issues.
In Sharkey's original post he said this:
The old Datsun MC has the front reservoir used for the rear brakes and the rear one for the front brakes.This sounds to me that it's the same as the Wilwood master cylinder as far as which port feeds which end of the car.
-
Are you sure that the Wilwood is the reverse of the original?
Looking at the Wilwood site, it seems to follow convention (rear port/reservoir to front brakes, front port/reservoir to the rear brakes).
-
I was going to ask about the colour of the spark, but you mentioned it in your edit.
You have a weak spark and this is causing your issue. The spark should be bright blue or white, orange is weak. Add the pressure in the cylinder and there may not actually be any spark at all. You could try closing up the gap real tight to see if if will light off, but you likely still won't be able to actually drive the car, if it does light off.
The 10V at the coil is low, but not unreasonably so, though I would assume this is a measurement without the engine running, and while cranking the voltage could drop to level too low to actually light the engine, if everything else was good.
Do you have a battery charger/booster connected?
If the battery has a higher voltage, you could use a jumper directly to the coil/ignition system to provide this higher voltage to see if that's the root cause of your issue. With the length of wire between the battery and the coil it's very possible that the voltage drop is too much, especially if the battery is weak.
Also disconnect the ignition wire from the coil, and measure the voltage with the circuit open, if the voltage goes up significantly then there may be a problem with the coil or the ignitor system you are using if it also feeds that.
So in closing you have a weak spark issue and you need to track down why. Could be voltage supply or actual component failure.
This sounds like an interesting set-up, but at this point I'd like to see some pictures, but I guess that's too much to ask according to some of you.
bad FPR and or pump, low pressure when hot?
in Fuel Delivery
Posted
Do you have a fuel injector that is failing to function when warm/hot?