Tony D

I'd skip the Cartech... The HKS and SK are worlds apart in engineering. If you want a Cartech, buy some 2X4 Box Tubing and make your own, it's cheaper and will perform identically...

Yeah, that's the "Burklands Streamliner" AA/BFS (Engine over 7 Liters, Blown, Alcohol Streamliner) It's bad when you recognize competition by their car number! LOL If you google "Burklands Streamliner" you will see more information than you want to know about the car! It was made by Gene & Tom Burklands some time ago...he was out of Montana if memory serves. This is a link to the photo of the car in it's current competitive colors/and numbers (313). Burkland's #411 car is a totally different bird these says, with a speed well exceeding the old B210 based car! http://www.chevyasylum.com/bsf2007/wos/20070912/20070912_146r8.jpg This link is somehow not letting us access the photo, yet I could download it from that addy...harumph! It looks nice in blue!!! This is a link to the Burkland's History page...it has proper records and stuff on that car. www.ugofadini.com/burklandstory3.html

Where did I say they weren't? The difference between the ricers and the racers was the vents didn't go anywhere, and the others were actually connected and performed an actual venting function. I don't see where your conclusion was drawn from what I said.

Packaging. CART engines used the squarish inlets because the cylinder stack is so close, and they use BARREL THROTTLES in the heads, so 'differential across the butterfly' is not an issue at WOT. If at all possible, the full recurved stacks like JohnC linked will produce the best flow characteristics. Everything that applies to N/A flow will apply to a plenum with forced induction. No Luminetion Barrel Throttles in the works Jeff? Muahahahahaha! 45 mm hole with tip in characteristics like a 40mm, and WOT flow comparable to a 48.....

Run dual 2.5" tube all the way back, then package accordingly. If you use the early 240Z differential crossmember you can hang the tubes like the stock Z432 Exhaust (twin 50mm or 60mm pipes) and all the exhaust will be invisible from the side... WELL up in the tunnel, and above the lower portions of the Framerails. The 240 diffy crossmember has the cutouts for dual exhausts. There is a reason those early cars ran the tubes straight out the back in twin pipes! FYI, twin 50mm pipes flow as much as a 2.78" single. Twin 2.5" pipes will flow similar to a 3.54" Single, and packages easier! Sucks up nicely and tightly if you use hangers at the rear just like the stock 432 Exhaust.

I REFUSE to be soiled by the Z31's presence on my turf. All 69-83's and 89-up are welcome... Sadly, that is the range of the stuff back there now. You never saw #305 when you were here last, did you? How could I ever put the "Nissan Saturn" next to #305???

Yeah, that's not a 280ZX, it's a 210. Burklands' car...

Are you sucking air on the inlet side of the pump? Perhaps a corroded pinhole inside the tank below fuel level. Been there, done that on the 260! At least it doesn't look like your pump is failed ( I was going to suggest rust ingestion from the tank till I saw 'prefiler'...then thought 'air leak'!) Good Luck.

1) The 2000 rpms range is very true! Even in land speed racing, you are only below 'peak power range' when you push off from the line. Otherwise, you are shifting to have your engine at/near peak torque...on built N/A's that's usually 4000-4500...pulling to horsepower peak somewhere between 6-7000. On our L28 LSR L28 we rarely let the rpms drop below 5000 between shifts, and on the L20A closer to 6500. 2) Our dyno testing showed some very interesting results regarding 'Internet Flow Potentials' that would seem to support John C's experience as well. When dynoing our L28, we found that we required two different ECU calibrations for when we were dumping straight off the header to atmosphere, and when running a full DUAL 3" exhaust to the back of the car... When we run the belly pan, we have to run the full exhaust, and when we do, the car is down on HP around 8-12HP depending on where you are in the usable RPM range. We of course remapped the ECU to minimize these losses, and to optimze each situation. Thosed lossed are the 'best case' scenario. When we went to the L20A (1998CC's) similarly we expected to have to recalibrate the engine when running header-dump versus full exhaust. In this case, with theengine making it's power peak closer to 8800 rpms (as opposed to the L28 at 8300) we noticed no difference in HP levels with or without the exhaust in place. So somewhere around less than 1400CC's at 14:1 CR and 8000rpms is where you will start to see a decrease in performance unless you are using a 3" exhaust! The L28 runs 14:1 CR, power peak at 8250. 320 HP The L20A runs 12:1 CR, power peak at 8775. 205 HP I could say that DUAL 3" exhausts on an L28 will show benefits... so a single would be 'shy'! Curiously, the Z432 came from the factory with TWIN 60mm pipes on it's exhaust system, and the original L24 Sport Exhaust was Twin 50's...when you do the cross-sectional comparison the equivalent is a minimum of 2.78" diameter for the L-Engine, and 3.34" for the S20 DOHC setup. Something to keep in mind for what Nissan Engineers thought was an 'optimized' setup for a STOCK engine! N/A versus Turbo are two different thoughts according to most, but for a Turbo 'Bigger is Better' is the simplest way to put it, the less backpressure you have the quicker you spool. And that is the name of the game. There, now I at least touched on the original topic!

"The stationary pulley is a roller for a z31 timing belt. " I knew they came in handy for somethingorother!

Yet people still ask me why I like FairladyZ's so much more than US Spec Vehicles....

Where did I hear that mentioned in the past? Unless you have the ability to really load the engine up so it takes TIME to accelerate through the load cells, datalogging is the only real option to see what is going on with the car. Even with that 38% grade, it's still pretty quick...it just gives us more cells in the log table to evaluate the situation instead of grabbing just a few cells and trying to make a quick decisio.

The stock stuff is barely grade five, grade 8 in shear loading for 400# is way overkill unless you are planning on lifting it with something like a pair of 4-40 screws...

Save your money till you know if it's allowed or not! If you have a coupe, you will compete in F/GT, where the record is around 158, our record is similar in F/PRO. Nice thing is in F/GT engine swaps ARE permitted, so you can do a N/A RB30, and still compete in the "F" Class. You also can run the G35 motor for the "E" Class, the Q45 motor for the "D" Class, and the Titan motor for the "C" class. Run the L20A or RB20DE for the "G/GT" and then sleeve the RB for a 1500cc six cylinder and run in "H/GT"! It's really an intriguing possibility actually. But given the vagaries of the board's decision at this point....I might start with a 1979 280ZX Slicktop Standard Model. Better Aero, same engine possibilities, and same parts availability! I have a 79 280ZX 2+2 Slictop, 83 280ZXT 2+2 (with slicktop roof on it), and another 79 Coupe coming Wednesday....got the idea I was planning on maxing out the S30 Capabilities before moving on? If they disallow the G-Nose it only leaves us competition in the G and H Classes. That means the fully prepped and ready to go "F" motor has no chassis that will be competitive. HELLO 79 SLICKTOP 2+2!!! PM or E-Mail me if you want some specific information on prepping to the LSR rules, etc. I'd be more than glad to help. And I have a 'spare' one-piece G-Nose that might be available if you are serious about the attempt (it's the 'crash spare' currently! LOL)

JeffP did most of his low-pass tuning, up to about 70 mph on the street. I already talked with Bryan about doing tuning on that range of power sweeps and saving his dyno time for the 70-140mph passes. It just becomes impractical to tune (not to mention seriouly unsafe) those boost ranges on the street. One the primary reasons is the Datalogging. There is absolutely no way to watch anything you are doing on a flatland pull from 70-120 in fourth gear. If Bryan's car is like JeffP's (and I am laying money it is) he will simply start smoking the tires at 75-80mph when the boost comes on unless he ballasts the back of the car and has a heavy passenger in it. This is my purpose in Jeff's car: Ballast. The FairladyZ DOES have a traction advantage in that the torqueover is slightly better because of where a single-driver vehicle has it's weight (on the right instead of the left). To keep Jeff's engine making steady slow sweeps, we simply increase the Grade Percentile and it makes for a pull slow enough that you can WATCH what is happening all the way, and then look at the Datalog afterwards to confirm what you will need to do to the AFR or spark or whatever. Without running at LEAST a 17% grade, Jeff's engine will pull 70-120 in less than 4 seconds. Even at 13-17% grade, the passes are only slightly slower. I'm guessing Bryan's car is accelerating harder from 70-120 than most cars are doing 0-30! Bryan, you may want to go JDM and get a G-Nose on that car to keep the front end glued to the road at speed. You will start getting light at 170 with that open maw. Time to read the Aerodynamics Threads!!! One drawback to tuning on the street has, is that the vehicle operator steadfastly keeps one hand on the wheel while making passes. Where is the car going to go that you need to steer?????? And KTM is correct, he knows where we are tuning, and if the strap breaks, no amount of steering crankage is going to do anything but fold the wheels into a specific angle when you hit that concrete wall 12 feet in front of you! I jsut got my United FF update. I have enough for Two Supersaver 25K mile awards in the lower 48. So that means I have the ability to set up the video. Please e-mail or PM me with your schedule so I can coordinate it: turbotony@excite.com. Thanks! Peace.

That Autometer works BETTER than my STOCK gauge in the Wife's 260Z! I have a red paint mark at around '3/8' tank where half actually is... I replace the tach on that car because the Autometer was $40 cheaper than a stocker, and was more accurate above 2000 rpms. Below there, welll.... nice writeup.

Puns are my sole domain! Brilliant one, though!

If you want to set up time in SoCal aroudn MSA Bryan, I'm sure JeffP and I can arrange a "Dyno Day" where we rent the Mustang Jeff tunes on for a whole day, and we split the cost. I know a couple of other people who might be interested, and we can set them up as 'alternates' in case something breaks, or we all get the results we want early and quick enough. I wouldn't want more than three or four people, and if I'm operating the Dyno it knocks $25 off the hourly rate... With the Mustang, we can set the grad for inertial runs so you have plenty of time to loiter at a load point. As well as setting RPM points we don't want you to exceed, and the Dyno will Autoload to prevent the car from accelerating past that point. You think your exhaust glowed on quick Dyno-Jet Inertial Passes! Wait till you hold the load for five seconds and let your EGT and AFR stabilize! Frankly, doing the test in Febuary would probably be better. It's not racing season, and the ability to get the dyno for a whole day, as well as having cool days for great air density is better. Peak Power, highest loadings possible.

The Electromotive Cars pushing 800+ HP were not 2.5L GTU cars. They were 2.8's (probably 2.8 bored .040" as allowed by rule, and for valve unshrouding). But as to this: "The Electromotive cars had completely different combustions chamber designs that were re-shaped, re-welded and had many many hours of skilled work, massive valves, porting and polishing that humbled the best builders and not to mention a very custom cam. " Up till last year, the same people who worked on the Electromotive heads were available to do the SAME THING to your street car. The head, along with the Cam designed by the same person who did the Electromotive Cam Development work all set up and ready for delivery was around $2400. You can get the same cam to day, from the same supplier. unfortunately the head builder will not longer do L-Heads, he's moved on. But truthfully Dave Rebello is getting similar flow numbers from STOCK SIZED VALVES, so don't put much credence in old porting technology. Porting technology is moving on, and with NC Machinery the consistency one can achieve on a port-to-port basis is astounding. As for welded combustion chambers....someone here who I am not at liberty to divulge is doing some pretty nice combustion chamber reworking. I have seen photos, and I am salivating to see the results! In the quote from R&T above, note there is obviously some 'understatement' saying the engines eventually made 700HP. That would be rock-solid reliable for a 24 hour race '700hp', afterall, 720 hp is only a 2.7% error in stated horsepower...hardly worth mentioning or parsing. But just like the L28ET makes 180HP, you KNOW the engine is capable of MUCH MORE for short bursts. Or even prolonged bursts. The difference in spark control technology now is the primary reason that increased, RELIABLE power is available from the L-Engine. Bryan, what gap are you running on your plugs? You may want to consider .020-.025" as anything wider may get the spark kernel blown out at boost. It may be spark generation related, but usually guys running higher boost for the first time don't realize the gap needs to be closed up from what an N/A engine normally runs.

The Electromotive Cars numbers come from people talking to the Dyno Operators who ran the testing back in the Competition Days. 820 for Sprints and Qualifying was a number given. 750 for Enduros. The published data was in the Road and Track test, and was given at 7500 rpms and 21.6psi of boost. Of course, that would have been valid numbers, had they only run the engine to 7500, and only run 21.6 psi of boost in competition. The Porsche 917 had coarse acme screwthreads on their boost controller, and in a 270 degree arc, the mechanics had written in yellow paint marker in a clockwise fashion the numbers "600" around 7 o'clock, "800" around 11:30, and "1100" around 2:30... The driver, with a twist of his wrist could almost double the output of the car. Same goes for Electromotive. You knew the engine was tested to well above what you 'needed' in a race to simply win, but if you needed to make up some time, or put on some distance for a maintenance interval you cranked it up. My only concern is the Turbo Longevity at 17psi. They are stock 280ZXT's and above around 12psi they are grossly inefficient, and with the thrust bearing design they don't live long. I believe mine surged at 23psi, so I limited my boost to 21 on the stock turbos. I think the 'proof of concept' is complete. I think it's time to quit screwing around and put some .43 A/R exhaust turbines on there to get your spool point down a little, and upgrade to a T4/T3 Hybrid design so you flow a lot more air for the exhaust you produce. I think there are great gains, and the T3/4 hybrids are cheap enough...and you don't have to worry about grinding the Intake manifold, or putting a spacer on the exhaust manifold to clear it! While it's possible that a single 280ZXT Turbo can make 300 hp, and since you have two of them the flow capacity should allow that...I think you need more flow from the Compressor with better efficiency at the 17-25 psi range, along with slightly less turbine area afforded by the .43 A/R housings. For a Nissan .43 A/R (or maybe it's .48) Exhaust Housing that is a direct bolt on retrofit to the turbo cartridges you currently have, they were on L20ET's as well as the LZ18ET---both JDM engines. Now, to watch the Videos... Oh, and when I told JeffP about the numbers last night he said "I'd be happy with those numbers. First run on the dyno? F**k yes, I'd be happy with those numbers!" First time I think I ever heard Jeff say he's happy with ANYTHING automotive related! LOL Good Job Bryan. 'He who will not be named' must be practicing puckering... my United Tickets have blackout dates, but not the Southwest Tickets...I wonder when SWA will start flying to ATL? muahahahaha!

Watch E-Bay they are on there all the time. Around $200 for a used set. ON ANOTHER NOTE... Would it be worth my time to do a 'layover template' on some of my fenders? I have some early S30, as well as Late S30 fenders around where I could lay a template over it and copy the holes directly. The early holes are round, the later Electric Controlled Mirrors are 'teardrop shaped'... The template should scan properly, and be a simple alignment with fender front edge and hood edge. "This side up for Right Mirror, RHD" kind of annotation. That would give exact hole dimensions without having to use your plastic bases as the template for figuring out the centering of the holes. Whaddya Think?

TIT and TOT were monitored, but we focused mostly on TIT as that was our direct goal for monitoring EGT. I can't even remember the delta on that setup. As for backpressure, with the last build, at 23psi, the backpressure in the manifold was 23psi... Now, with a turbo flowing more, external wastegate, and tubular header to the turbo, and making probably 100 more RWHP at 17psi that we previously did at 23+ psi I'm thinking our backpressure in the manifold is O.K., especially given the way the engine starts breathing and pulling up top! If I had a better (read Digital) EGT Gauge for TIT and TOT, comparisons would probably be more valid... I don't know if I wrote those down. I'm thinking I didn't as the stuff I did write down I seem to be remembering pretty well... BAH!

Stock lifting points are from the lifting hook at the front right part of the head, and the rearmost exhaust stud (where the lifting hook is probably gone). I have gone from front lifting hook to EGR bolt with no problems on more than one engine. That way lifts it reasonably evenly if you aren't using a load-leveler. Remember to unbolt the motor mounts. Don't laugh...it happens!

Apparently there are upgrades you can do to them now to give a load-point constant load. I just haven't seen one yet to compare with how the Mustang works. Then again, the Mustang place straps it down and lets us alone. For $75 an hour with me as the operator, it's hard to argue with price, either!!! Not many places just turn you loose on their $40K dyno and say "let us know when you want to get off, we have someone coming in at 1300, so you have to unstrap by 1230 regardless!"

I just got off the phone and confirmed with Jeff P my recollections. Originally he was running the base tune in the 11:1 range, and we had the timing set. Generally it was around 19 degrees at full rpm and 17-20psi of boost. That original tune was glowing on the dyno. I did confirm that we did not touch the timing, as we were in the 'fuel trim only' mode since our goal was to lean it out till it stopped making more power. We were concentrating on the AFR's near and past the torque peak of the engine (basically 4000 to 7500 rpms). We kept pulling fuel, with bins past the torque peak in some cases in the 12.8 to 13.2 AFR range being where we settled on. That is to say our process was to go until we either got detonation or we started seeing instantaneous torque drop. At either point, we then backed off .2 or .3 AFR points and left it alone to move to the next loadpoint bin. So that means we were actually close to 13.5 to get best torque. That would seem to follow the EGT logic from the articles above, the 11:1 for some reason had very high TIT and TOT (not measuring individual cylinders, just turbine in and out) at the 11:1 AFR for some reason. The only thing I can figure is some sort of 'post burning'. Once we were above 12.5, the differences in TIT AND TOT observed were 'insignificant' on our instrumentation, so it may well have followed the same trend given the 25 degree and 50 degree trends. I used to have access to a 12VDC powered Industrial Engine Exhaust Gas Thermocouple Panel that I would use...digital readout of temperatures accurate as heck. Unfortunately we didn't have that, or the numbers could have been trended closer. Any reason why his engine would have shown higher temps at 11:1 (only after torque peak) than at 12.7 to 13.5? Hope that cleared up the mystery somewhat. We definately were not screwing with timing to get EGT's down, it was set and left alone will we got the AFRs more optimized. We were loosing too much power at 11:1, and felt AFR was where the most traction would be achieved power-wise...