Tony D

" and you can even leave a stock longblock unmodified and even leave it in your engine bay while you do what's needed to make well over 200hp. " I think someone else said that already...several times. The trees are in the way...

"Forgive me for being blunt - ok, don't forgive me. Your being obtuse and missing the point here. You aren't an engine builder, you haven't built one of these before, and you don't do this for a living. Your an armchair engineer on this issue. You have many of us who HAVE built these motors well in excess of your modeling. Many of us are engineers as well - some for their full time job. Many of us can also tune the EFI motors. We aren't speaking out of theory and conjecture - but actual experience." Usually I'm the guy that reaches this point first...

I agree with John C on placement of the cuts, and logic behind it. I've done a few of these as 'wrinkles' from shunts usually are confined to the area in front of the strut towers and crossmember. It's fairly straightforward to lop off the piece and weld it back on...the strut tower flange makes a very handy reference point for measurement. Make sure your donor is 'straight' and make a lot of measurements before cutting it so you know what your wreck is supposed to measure out to be once in place. Measure 8 times, cut once. Measure 15 times spotweld twice and then measure again before stitching it all together. Nothing worse than headlight(s) that permanently look to one side of the road because you are a bit shorter on that side of the car...

"Tony - 205 (crank HP) and 9:1 compression (I'll guess 57 ft-lb/l) works out to 9450 RPM - bet it sounded pretty!" Mustive been slightly higher than 9:1 then... As a world record holder you would think it was a 'race' engine, huh?

there is a link?

Performance gained versus money expended and potential problems says 'don't do it!' All you will do is shorten the lifespan of a head that is no longer in production. Once you shave it off, it's a bugger to put back on!

It's the best reason there ever was!

"Probably because off throttle at high RPM's you are drawing a ton of vacuum and going rich from the idle mixture." Not 'probably' that is exactly what is happening! The high vacuum is put on one port and effectively siphons gas at a high rate from the idle circuit. This is one area that Megasquirt guys play with extensively and are rewarded with PHENOMENAL gains in fuel economy. Tailoring the 'decel fuel cut' parameters to keep the engine from injecting fuel when in effect it needn't even be running is a terrible waste of fuel. It's why every EFI system in OEM applications uses it, even pre-emissions era! After emissions were factored in, the decel fuel cut became the primary method for decreasing HC Emissions in Rolling-Road Emissions checks. Simple fuel cut and dashpot on the throttle does wonders for emissions reduction, increases fuel economy, and doesn't effect performance one whit! But "they're emissions components, they aren't needed on a performance vehicle"...

For Lazeum: "Something as well to bring to the discussions is the feeling. With Triple carbs or ITB and a good exhaust, I believe car feels also much quicker than it really is; noise becomes really nice, you’ll get addicted very quickly. " ABSOLUTELY! My story of the Triple-Carbbed L28 with 87HP that FELT fast as hell but was down on power to stock EFI is up before, and follows exactly what he's saying. The quiet Stock EFI made 147 on the same engine, less the headers! (And it jibes nicely with Leon's ride in his post as well as an old 240 I had long ago...) Feels and Sounds are terrible quantifiers of power to the roadway. As to the 8400 rpms estimate... Well, maybe it had less than we thought... Try it a 9:1 then and not 11:1 (it was the same head from the L28, you can only pop up a 79mm bore piston so far into an 86mm combustion chamber), and I guess the C16 was wasted. Here again, the forest is lost from all the trees. The books all said the Top Fuelers could never make it because the mean piston speed was 'impossible to achieve'... Books are books, and you can read all you want. Reading only accomplishes so much--in this case maybe tired eyes. Doing accomplishes something else, and produces a tangible result. And as Gollums post points out, Irony is biting when a guy is looking for 100less HP than the average post here. There were plenty of 325HP L24's in Japan in the 80's...but they have a different 'driveable' definition than most Americans. Then again, I guess it depends on how you drive!

Well, I PM'd the source of CF Gold Plated First-Series Bosch Type Connectors to you with my final thoughts on this matter.

Theorists also said the mean pistons speed of the top fuel engines and the speed they will reach is impossible... Making statements like CR will give you X and Y results is foolish. Same as projecting crank torque to a mythical rpm power peak. Your biggest problem is your discounting of what proper breathing does for torque, and how much more it makes compared to your examples. If you don't think a camshaft makes a huge difference in peak torque go back to school on that one. Yes, it influences the curve--guys say all you can do it move it up or down. Wrong! If you have a COMPETENT cam grinder, and discuss your flow in the head, the lift and valve events occur to maximuze YOUR combination (you don't buy a cam off the shelf when a custom ground one specifically tailored to YOUR application is a whole $100!!!!) The 3.2 I quoted was running 44 Mikunis and 36 boosters. It wasn't the induction, nor the flow of the head, it was his cam that limited his output. 5800 rpms was the peak, and it was 'lazy'. It was a store-bought cam, one of those 'advertised' units. Gave up a lot IMHO, it cost the same to have one ground, why not have done it right in the first place? All the theoretical calculators say that 44's with 36's should be up a bit higher than that, and make more power at a higher RPM. But with the off the shelf cam he had, that is how it worked out. Theory is good to a point, but I wouldn't bet my power production from the L-Series on it. Some combinations of parts work exceedingly well together, others don't. Scott's engine with 40's on it should easily pick up 20HP if not more from the reduced pumping losses on the intake side alone. Putting him within 24 HP of a 3.2 with 44's--you would THINK the big carbs and 3-400CC's would be worth more than that on the Benchracing Theoretical Scale! AGAIN, it's the combination of parts, not picking numbers out of the air that are based on nothing more than theory. It doesn't work like that except on the benchracing interwebs. In Scott's case, he came up with similar assumptions as you did. In the end talking with a head porter and a cam grinder he came up with a 2.8 at 0.040" over that twisted a set of SU's to 182 hp at the rear wheels at 6500 rpms or less with less CR than he thought he 'needed'. How does that fit in your calculations? The CR was Califorina-Pump Gas 91 No-Ping. Meaning less than you are stating you 'need' to get that power. At 11:1 what does at 2L need to turn to make 205HP? Theory is good to a point. You need to discard it when you get to the real world and find examples that tell you there is more than textbook calculations to factor into the equation.

Scott B. of Group Z Sports Car Club (see photos of his car in the intersection on the 'How to make a 240Z Safer' thread...) ran a Slovers-Ported head with an Iskendarian Cam and SU Carburettors to turn 182HP to the rear wheels on a cast-piston 0.040" overbore flat-topped piston 6500rpms power peak L28 with MASSIVE low-end torque. It's another example of Bob H's example. Originally there was a long list and 'internet overbuild' involved in his car. In the end: SU's man... Now, when he started he was looking into EFI, looking into triple Mikuinis, looking into all sorts of stuff. In the end a set of tired SU's ran that car to 182 and with the power coming on the way it did, a set of 44's would EASILY push that engine to over 200 at the rear wheels. Like Bob H says, there is some obsession with an RPM point. Scott scratches his head when our 2.0 made 205 to the rear wheels. So did someone else when a 3.2 and Mikuini 44's ran 224 at 5800rpms peak! It's the proper matching of parts that makes real power, not som magic bullet of rpms or displacement. What is wanted can be reached using stock components (if not a engine swap from a particular, specific stock Datsun!) This isn't rocket science, it isn't something that needs exotic parts. RPM's will get you power, but at what cost? And why? If there TRULY is a Horsepower Goal---then where you make it won't matter. Gear accordingly. Power in an L-Engine is, has been, and always will be in the Head. RPM's may give you more, but the money you spend on the head in proper preparation will make a versatile bolt-on for almost any combination you choose to run underneath it. Put $3200 in the bottom end and you just cost yourself $3200 for a dedicated setup. Put $1500-2400 into the proper head work and you got something that can work on several subsequent builds, and if you do it right when you get those forged pistons in there later on...it won't be 7500 that is the limit if you've done your headwork right! Believe it or not, we ran the exact same head on a 320HP L28, and on a 205HP L20A. Yeah, we lost horsepower because we didn't have all the compression we 'should' have had on the L20A...but know what? We also didn't want to spend $2400 for another freakin' head, either! That stance has recently changed, though... Street engines and weekend warriors are frequently overbuilt money pits with people building from a list of internet parts everybody says they 'need' when building a performance engine. Many times it's merely "parrot droppings"---guys just prattling on about what you 'need' because they read it in a magazine or online someplace. You can make a LOT of power without spending a fortune on bottom end internals and your longevity will not suffer in any discernable, measurable way. Hell, you want 200HP just go get a stock Eurospec 280ZXT engine....DONE! Stock. Cast Pistons. 300,000 mile reliability. You don't need forged in any 200HP engine. You do in a 7500rpm engine. The two are different animals. There is absolutely no requirement to twist the engine that tight to get only 200HP. It's turning for the sake of turning. And that VO7 7500rpm limit? I'd disregard that as well...

<EDIT>I would agree, there is little a little effort to get the original clips off without damage--I usually take the bails completely off until 'final assembly', which is why I now just buy the quick-release bails. I loose them from time to time. Ever try to buy clips alone? So a trip to the JY...and while you're in the junkyard you see this row of Volvos and...<EDIT> Engines are now modular, clips can't be fiddled with or require special tools to remove---they have to be something that can be detached by a technician in the field quickly for diagnosis or plugging into specialty testing machinery. <EDIT>The Bosch clips are used on industrial compressors and other severe duty environments and have gone to the QR bail type as well since some of these sensors fail regularly due to harsh environments. Some lifetimes are measured in HOURS of operation. <EDIT> If the 'stock first generation connectors' were perfect, there would never have been a redesign. The very essence of this board exists to improve upon designs that are 40+ years old, which is why I would give the nod to the QR Bails.<EDIT> If I was doing a restoration for someone going into ZCCA Judging, though...THEN the OEM style would be the only acceptable alternative.<EDIT> <EDIT>There ARE sites out there which will sell you the PINS alone, BTW--I think for even the RC Connectors, I would prefer when making harnesses to put the pins DIRECTLY on my harness wiring and NOT use a pigtail---and for that reason BOTH the listed alternatives have an 'equal negative' to hold against them. I know pigtails are nice on service replacements, but for someone MAKING A NEW HARNESS both of these alternatives are suboptimal IMO. You can harvest all the Volvo Connectors, then re-pin them for a FRACTION of the cost of EITHER of the alternatives above. I think for a new harness that would be a better idea.<EDIT>

Backfiring out the exhaust....is simply unburned hydrocarbons in the pipe from drop-throttle. Not enough O2 to support combustion. But it's in that hot pipe...and it mixes with O2 in the pipe reaching the upper or lower explosion limit, and BOOM! it lights off quickly. Actually if you work it right what you get instead is a BURN in the pipe, and not an explosion. Then you can actually see the blue flame front go back up the pipe. If you are back on the throttle before it gets to the lel limits, no bang. Take a paint can, pop a hole in the top and fill it with propane. Light the hole. It will burn externally for a second then go inside....get quiet, then BANG! Blow the lid clean off. That's what you're getting. By 1500 everything in the exhaust is burnt. Put A.I.R. on it, or a throttle dashpot or snubber to hold the plates off-idle for 3 seconds after total lift-throttle and it will greatly alleviate this issue as well. Drops emissions precipitously at the same time...but emissions controls add weight and couldn't have any other purpose than sapping power from a performance engine, so it's probably best you don't apply them in this instance.

" I don't think there is a turnkey setup with the throttle-bodies, control-unit, sensors, pumps, cable etc. needed to put FI on an originally carbureted car" Boss EFI makes a system meant for cars without a fuel return line especially muscle cars and is a complete Fuel SYSTEM kit involving carb conversion body, fuel pump, sensors ecu etc. It's good to 500HP utilizing an OEM style long and short term fuel trim to 'self tune' the ECU with it's onboard WBO2 for best engine performance with minimal technical involvement of the owner. You can get it without carb body (usually a four barrel, but they do have triple strombergs as an option) to use DCOE Style ITB's. As shown above sourcing of ITB's is from several different sources and is a function of what you are willing to pay. "Turnkey" never comes cheap, and if you think you will bolt on tripples and turn the key to the tune of 200HP we are again entering fantasyland. If that technical complexity scares you, farm it out.

Yep, off the RC Website, those are what I have, and what I'm talking about. In the photo above with them all, I would use ANY of the three to the left-they all work the same, and I would not use the two to the right. As stated earlier, later plastic is better suited for higher temperatures, and while the stock replacement gives you 'the look' of a stock part and likely would last longer, it is still the same PITA to lift if you have to do anything to an injector or a sensor anytime during the lifetime of the vehicle. The first e-bay photo I can't see the bail separation, and they looked like stock replacements compared to the RC Photo which I knew from ordering and personal experience to be the quick-release bail type, and my preference for the above listed reasons. If they are the 'bail type' that is easily removable <EDIT> The photos now make it clear they are not<EDIT>...then get whatever you want wherever you want they will function identically. I'm with the comments above 100% in the differences in boots, and I did neglect to mention BMW as they have some very nice right-angle boots on their connectors that allows you to really make a nice harness when you don't want messy 'big loops' of wire coming off the back of the sensors (like at the thermostat housing near the stock fan!!!) Nice thing about the BMW boots: you can order them as a separate part number from Bosch directly once you find the ones you like in the JY, a quick call, some money, and you have some really nice new boots!

Don't have time to comb in the interweb for the injector clips in LARGE FORMAT. Someone else do it. Also, the injector clips sold by Russ Collins (RC Engineering) are of the Euro-Compound, which generally has better compounding than the Japanese Stuff from the 80's (compounding advances as they years go by) so newer harness clips are better than the older ones on that fact alone, even if they are identical. Go find a photo of Volvo Clips---and post it. That is what I'm talking about, have been talking about, and am only talking about. From what I can see in the RC Photo (it doesn't get bigger for me...) they are the same clip with the press-to-release bail and not the 'use a small screwdriver and break the clip' type. It would have been helpful if when you 'weren't challenging me' if you could have presented a photo of what you think I was talking about. I thought I put if forth pretty clearly what they were, and from what I can see from the provided photos in the thread, that is what the RC units are... And what I got from RC. If he's selling original Bosch Clips, then that's news to me, I've never gotten that style clip from his place...not since 1989 at least.

"i do wonder if my water measuring method is any good for measuring the volume of something to be filled with air..." Volume is Volume, you want to get something that doesn't effervesce like pouring a coke 2L into the thing would not be recommended, nor would Litros of Red horse Extra Strong Lager... But if you have a known volume, and fill carefully to avoid turbulence, you can get very accurate measurements. A 100CC graduated flask or even a cooking cup will do to give you decent CC approximation and from there direct calculation is a cinch. If you want maths, and are some sort of new-age masochist, then by all means figure in cups, tsp, tbs, and etc and convert from Pecks Dry to Gwarfhals Preen on the Newbian Parsec Market exchange, then back to metric to get a good number. You never hear of a guy with a Turbo Buick 3.8 going: "MAN I dig my one-gallon engine!" (Think about it! It's what it is!!! )

No, math makes my head hurt. Oh, waitaminit, that is the beer, rum, and Jonny Walker Black...

The stock turbo comes in below or around 2200, so it deceives you somewhat of the cams capabilities. It sounds a lot like a 240 or 260 cam in the same turbo application, same sort of boosted performance when before just N/A you felt the cam 'come on' at a higher rpm (like 3000-3500 torque peak at 4000) the massively improved breathing below peak torque makes for a very flat torque curve--so much so in fact that it feels like an NA pulling from 2200 without any 'turbo surge' it just pulls and pulls and pulls. Till the normal cam dynamics gives out. Same power curve, just moved up on the power graph vertically. Incidentally, this is how a properly designed turbo system should work. Boost Threshold should be significantly below cam peak torque and VE best points... makes driveability much easier and takes away all the turbo 'bad habits' from the 60's and 70's. Common question heard is "This is a turbo car?" I suspect the Hybrid you have 'comes on' and gives full boost at around 3200, so you will feel the car surge in power when the turbo 'kicks in'... Though if the cam has the extra lift getting even 3psi before boost threshold may make enough difference that the bottom end pre-boost-threshold portion of the rpm range is fattened up enough that you feel the car pulling from well before that point. Then when you take the turbo off, you go "where did all my pre-boost power go?" I know that's what I did!

No, not on a 280Z---you have to watch out that the advice you give/get is APPLICABLE to the model being discussed. The 280 no longer used the Ammeter (which by function must have all the car's power through it to give an accurate indication of amperage draw/charge in the system.) The 280Z and 260Z used a Shunt for this purpose, keeping all high amperage wiring outside the passenger compartment. The largest issue with these cars is poor sensing line voltage leading to drift, and voltage regulators that drift. The speed of the alternator is usually not sufficient to support more than minimal loads at idle. Period. The ONLY way to up amperage is change the turns ratio of the alternator--PERIOD. Make it larger diameter increases rotor/stator arc speed to cut more turns and you get more amperage at the same speed, or put in more turns which is limited by the physical size of the alternator so you speed it up with pully ratio---the end result being an alternator turning 12K+ rpms at redline, and wires on the rotor blowing out in a spectacular fashion ... ask me how I know about that one! How you achieve the amperage you want at idle is up to you, but there are no secrets here. It's all the same situation dictated by ohms law. Then, once you solve the 'amperage' issue at point of origin then you find DISTRIBUTION to be the next weak point. Generally from fuse to accessory in most cases you don't have an issue. But the power feed line off the stock alternator (and equally important the GROUND RETURN SECTION OF THE EQUATION) is sorely lacking. Fix the ground, main power feed, and alternator power supplying capacity and most of the other stuff is a non-issue. Headlights have plug in relay upgrades, nobody powers their high-capacity stereo off the stock radio fuse... What ELSE do you really change that you don't run dedicated circuits on your own? The basic utility system in the car is darned good with the exception of grounds and switching power via ground. Fix the ground loop which everybody seems to ignore and everything works better. VW and Chevrolet were known for running ground straps on everything. Nissan doesn't have ONE on the car. The fuel tank has a dedicated ground line, that shunts to the chassis. But that's it! Pitiful. An electrical circuit has TWO components for those electrons to travel through: Supply and 'ground return'---if you concentrate all your focus on the supply side only, you make more problems down the road. Live on a boat for a while, or with a Corvette, and you will understand better! OH---And the wires you show in the photos: Not Nissan. Those are all accessories added by someone. If you haven't cut into the harness you are in for a shock. It's not much better inside, but it was functional for 30 years.

How about this: DRIVE THE CAR! Now, in 3,000 miles, tell us how much oil you had to add. Or was the oil still on the dipstick after 3K miles? Chances are the turbo can be at fault for the smoke. White smoke can simply be condensation in the exhaust as well... Everybody today seems to freak out with a little smoke out the tailpipe. No catalyst cars tend to do that, it's not a 2012 Honda guys! Just because an engine 'burns oil' or for that matter 'consumes it' at a given rate DOES NOT mean there is anything wrong requiring a teardown! The biggest tip I can give you is: Quit looking for a problem and get some MILES on it before jumping to conclusions or tearing into anything. For all anybody knows, this could just be condensation in the exhaust. EVERY post where someone says they see white smoke out the tailpipe, it seems the first post after in response is 'blue smoke=oil, white smoke=water' and then it's tear down the engine time to diagnose something wrong. This is not the case. I started my 260 the other day when it was cold out, and the condensation smoke out the tailpipe was like you thought the head gasket let go... But it clears up and the next day: Same thing once again. There's nothing wrong with the car, it just has an exhaust system that doesn't leak and the can condenses a lot of water everytime it shuts off. Same could be the case here. Far to early to jump to a conclusion. Even if there is oil in the combustion chamber, without a PCV drawing a vacuum on the crankcase, this will be the case. It WILL consume more oil will a simple road-dump tube than with an active PCV in operation. Far to early for diagnosis involving tearing anything apart!

Generally if you look at most race cars, there is a little box that has been added in that area to clear properly calculated headers. You took pains to get collectors where they 'need' to be, and sometimes that doesn't jibe with what packages well in a street car. Clearance the car, not the collectors! As for engine mounts, here's a snap of a former F1 Lead Engineer's thoughts on what L-Engine Mounts should look like (as well as a take on tranny cross-member): I'll be in his shop in about two weeks time. I hope my baggage allowance is sufficient, I feel I won't have a lot of money left over when this trip is through!

That explanation made it clear as mud. You mean to say 'acceleration tapered off'? Like the rpms DID physically go higher, but the engine didn't pull as hard as it did at the lower rpms? This is a CRITICAL distinction to make. How fast in MPH were you going when you upshifted from 1st and 2nd?

No Update?