Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
The "Goertz Paeco" was a serious search item. Albercht Goertz knows nothing on this head, and disavows anything to do with any developmental engine work for anything pertaining to the engine.
Paeco, the race engine builder in Birmingham Alabama, also disavows any knowledge of this head, saying something along the lines of "We never casted no heads before, that one surrrrre looks purdy!"
So both of those leads were dead ends. The only thing I know for sure was the seller at the Swap Meet bought the lump at an "estate sale" which means probably there was an engineer/draftsman living in Sandiego in the early 70's that had this built. Why the casting has "Goertz Paeco" on the rear is a mystery, and the buyer has gone back to find the swapmeet seller to no avail.
The blueprints are hand drafted, inked, and in english measurements. Unfortunately, the prints have neither a draftsmans' name, or company of production. It amazes me to think someone sat at a table and literally started from a blank sheet and made this much happen!
And yes, that's why the second group of photos was added, for the "question" that I will not dignify with a response. Something is to be said for actually reading the original post, and comprehending the words "unfinished". Contrary to popular belief, I now concede there is such a thing as a stupid question!
As for "Looking at the design, it is very similar to the Toyota 7MGTE out of the Supra" The 7MGTE is a derivation of the "G" heads that came before it, and the 2000GT {1M-G}(as well as it's four cylinder cousin the 67 1600GT {2T-G}) share similar Yamaha-Inspired Design Cues. I have some photos of a 2000GT engine on a stand from the Toyota Museum in Carson, but don't have them available on this computer----alas! Otherwise one could be shot up for comparison.
Yeah, I get into some interesting places, don't I?
-
the 240Z vapor return line will work as a return line, the stock one is too small.
You can route the stock fuel pressure regulator return barb right over the side of the intake and J-Pipe to go to the vapor return line. You will have to hook the return line back at the tank to one of the 1/4" barbs, and use the stock return line as a vent (has to come higher than fuel level, then loop back outside the vehicles' interior.
If you are using the stock tank, you can use the stock pickup line and filter to fill the sutre tank for the EFI pump up front, but an electric pump is better.
If you are using a 75 to 6/76 280Z tank then you can simply return the vapor line to the stock return fitting on the 280 tank.
Hope this isn't confusing you at all. If you are planning on going high horsepower, you may want to get a Porsche 944 Turbo pump, or high-flow Walbro as referenced in the archives of this site.
Those are the biggies concerning the fuel system on a 240 Z. On a 260 or 280Z the return line is fine, but the 240Z's line is too small and will have you running rich as hell if you try to use it!
-
the R32 Factory Service Manual is online for download. All 810 pages.
I downloaded it to my company laptop while on a T-1 line back at the corporate offices....
That should have everything you need, but for the life of me, I can't remember the site where I got it.
You need good highspeed internet to download the whole thing.
And it's in ENGLISH!
If it fits on a single CD I could probably make one and send it to you.
I believe it linked from here. I don't go many other places, and I know it wasn't on ZCar.com!
-
priceless...
-
What kind of pump did you have on your L24 before?
You need one capable of 40psi to run the EFI system.
If you are not using the power transistor to tirgger the coil as it was in the ZXT, it will never work.
Both of these may be the cause for you not getting any fuel, as without a spark timing pulse, the ECU will not supply fuel. But if you are not using an EFI pump, you will getno fuel anyway spark or no.
-
the 76 280Z 2+2 Andy Flagg races at Bonneville has seen 173+mph, and was running a full belly pan.
The front radiator grille was completely blocked off, so the comparison isn't really apples to apples, but without the front blocked and the belly pan in place the same car is around 10mph slower.
And that's a considerable change, seeing as the engine looses HP by running the exhaust full out the back of the vehicle and not in the shortie dumps that it was dyno tuend with!
-
You may want to consider the stock 2000cc engine used in Japan Market, the L20E or the L20ET.
The L20E is fuel injected 6-cylinder identical in your configuration. Bolts right in. Has about 130HP in the stock form.
The L20ET is similar in configuration, and makes the same Horsepower as the stock L28E you currently have in the vehicle, but produces much more torque.
This swap (L20ET swapped for L28) was VERY popular in Japan in the late 80's and early 90's due to the exact same reasons you state: governmental taxation on vehicles with engines larger than 2000CC.
The L20ET will give you better drivability than the original L28. Many of the Specialty Magazines in Japan actually showed the 2-Litre engine to be superior in acceleration & fuel economy steady state due to it's turbocharged configuration producing more torque.
It is something to consider, as it required absolutely no re-engineering of the chassis or mounting points. It literally is a drop-in affair.
The most I could see having to do is swap oil pans and fabricate a rear-sump pickup if you happen to get a front-sumped engine out of a Skyline or other vehicle. Z, Cedric, and Gloria Sedans all were available with the L20ET and had rear sumps. I believe the Skyline was a front-sump engine, and am not quite sure what the Leopard had, but it too was available with the L20ET.
Good Luck on the Swap. Hope this gave you an easier alternative.
-
"but weight reduction in the moving components is a necessity in producing maximum HP"
This is a technical difference ECP. Reducing the weight of rotating components on the chassis does not produce any horsepower.
It eliminates a parasitic loss of the chassis.
Like John C stated, when measured on an engine dyno, you will see no increase in HP. The engine makes what it makes. It does not "make more" due to the elimination of a chassis component. Only more is read / sensed due to the methodology of the testing.
Weight reduction inside the engine may assist in production of HP through friction reduction, etc, but external items do not make horsepower, they only reduce a parasitic loss so what the engine is producing gets to where it needs to be.
This is why many teams test on the engine dyno, then retune on the chassis dyno.
The two methodologies quantify very different things.
-
Sure, Drax, I'll send them presently.
Be glad I'm in a hotel with Broadband. I am not prone to sending out stuff several times...
Eventually, they will make their way to this post I HOPE!
-
look up underneath your vehicle! It has to be leaking ans saturationg stuff for a looooong time before it drops on the ground!
-
Sure it's the seal?
A very common point of leakage is the pin with an "E" clip just forward of the shifter. Many times this pin (which is covered in sealant on both ends) is knocked free during rough installation or sotrage, and since it's right in the area of slinging gear oil, it leaks like a seive, and to good effect, puts the blame on the shifter section!
I actually had a tranny where someone had REMOVED the white sealant fro mthe ends of the pin, thinking it was the "shifter pin" you had to remove to get the shifter out! (Hey, it has and E-Clip on it!) Man that thing leaked suprisingly well! I ended up dropping it out to clean and fix the pin with a gob of epoxy on both sides.
-
DONE! Thanks, look forward to seeing them here.
Those four are the only 1280x960 photos I could take when the guy had it out.
The rest are some 640x480 shots, and I can send those to you if you're interested in other closer up views.
I'm anxious to see what others here think about the head...
And that it was bought complete with the machining plates semi-finished at a SWAP MEET! (With Blueprints!
) -
well, I tried to send some of the parties here a few photos of a custome one-off head so they could post it, but between being "over quota", or "not liking sender" all my cool photos got bounced back.
Well, at least ONE photo got through, so maybe you guys will see something neat and unseen digitally ever before.
A one-off casting bought at a Swap Meet in San Diego CA a few years ago. You got it: a DOHC head for an L24 engine....
-
yep.
Do you have photos of the L20ET in the donor vehicle by any chance? I am curious about some stuff and looking at a photo of the intake manifold would answer a lot of my questions.
You can send it to my Yahoo Address.
Thanks.
-
which "blower" are we looking at in that ad Tim?
-
these guys know what it takes for tubing to be done right. This is from their tech section on their website, search around their homepage, and you will find out all sorts of stuff about tubing!
http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Construction/construction.html
-
couple of problems:
1) O2 does not like to stop flowing quickly at high pressure. It will most likely cause an "oxygen fire" at teh point of the rapid shutoff.
2) Injecting pure O2 into the exhasut manifold WILL cause an oxygen fire.
Oxygen fires are not cool. You do not want one.
Some industrial engines use compressed AIR to pre-spin the turbo up to speed in conjunction with the air-to-head start system. But this is impractical for anything but a single run down the track, and to get it installed in the car, Tech will have to approve a 3600psi air cylinder somewhere on the car...
-
L20ET had 145PS same as an L28 N/A.
The L20ET had more torque than the N/A motor.
The exhaust manifold and turbo will work on an L28, if you use the L28 head and intake, fueling it up to you. The L20ET manifold has some very small runners and doesn't really flow all that well.
Cheers!
-
Oh, Forrest, quit complaining!
You want troubles: read the sticky for my latest!
Hope you guys keep having good luck. I know I'm not.
-
well, I know valvcover to valvecover is't narrow enough to go in an S30.
But the engine is TALL. When I measured the prototype at a car sho early last year, the Nissan Keepers were "HEY! You with the tape measure come here!"
They just shook theri head when therealized I was not some competition spy, and was really measuring the engine for fitment in another chassis. I believe their comment was "This thing isn't at dealers yet, and this guy is already trying to get it fit in something else!"
We are all diseased!
BTW, how does one poast as a guest? Found that interesting. Feature disabled now, right?
-
Kinda o.t., but JOHN!
Borrow Andy's tires, take a run up to ElMirage, and try for a GT or MS record before you sell!
It would be one way for you to claim your $1 from me!
Seriously! Make a weekend trip, and get teched, and run it flat out for 1.3 miles to see where it goes. The only reason I say ElMirage is that you will probably have it sold by Bonneville, and that's a loooong drive for a lark!
I would like to see it up there, for no other reason than to sate my curiosity about the stock bodywork...
You have MORE than enough horsepower.
I think nobody has realized that Stony's car is an SCTA LEGAL GT-Class competitor (engine Swaps ARE permitted in GT! an RB26 powered stock-bodied 240 would shut a lot of people up about how fast you can REALLY go in an unaltered 240 as horsepower would not be an issue...)
-
Chronic, I'm sorry to say, you are a bit off on that last post, and Sims is correct.
First, 7psi is 7psi.
The CFM you state means the more efficient unit has the POTENTIAL for supplying more CFM at a given PSI.
But only if your engine REQUIRES the additional flow.
Basically the less efficient turbo more than likely will be turning a faster RPM to make the same Backpressure in the intake manifold.
PSI is just a resistance to flow.
This is why some cars make 300hp at 10 psi, and others need 15psi to achieve.
Don't confuse airflow potential with PSI. The reason the more efficient unit has cooler air is due to operating at a more optimum tip speed. The pressure ratios are the same to get 7psi. Pressure ratio of the wheel only says it's potential.
To get 7psi on the same engine, you only need feed it with X CFM, no matter what the turbo is capable of delivering.
-
you may want to contact John Williams of Williams Machine in Lake Elsinore CA.
I believe he was cutting bare billetts for cam grinders locally (Gude Performance, I believe). This would get you a billett, but you would probably have to supply detailed dimensions for the lobe centers and bearing surfaces. Then off to the cam grinder for final finishing of your billett.
Then again, if RB cams fit, why reinvent the wheel?
-
Sir? I'm no sir!
and no, I'm no ma'am either 8)
Mystery Solved!! Final say on the loose crank issue
in 6 Cylinder Z Forums
Posted
seems you figured it out on your own...
The key to endplay measurements is indicating play with the crank one way, then forcing it the other.
1mm of movement is around .040", and your endplay should be a few thousandths, not .040!
I once had a VW Type 1 engine that came in to my place with an owner complaining of a bad oil leak and noise from the back of the car.
The pulley was hitting the tin! The play was around .125"!!! This is for a vehicle set up with "oilclearance endplay" of .008 TOPS! In most cases the endplay of the crank on the thrust bearing will be around 0.006" to 0.008" for the simple reason that if you go any closer, the oil will not have sufficient space to form a proper hydrodynamic wedge and float the crank on the oil. This is what the thrust bearing is supposed to do, and how it functions.
You shold see maybe .006" to .010". If clearance is too large, you loose oil pressure from an "uncontrolled leak" around the periphery of the bearing. To tight, and it "wears itself in" and that's not good...
Like you surmised, starting the engine cold, with your foot on the pedal of an overweight high-performance pressure plate is a sure way to kill your thrust bearing. (Take a look at bearings designed after the federal laws mandated a "clutch interlock device" for manual vehicles! WAAAY bigger bearing area, on bearings most likely designed to fit within the old machining of the block to minimize engine-plant tooling costs.)
So you can guess I have removed the clutch, seatbelt, and neutral "safety interlocks" in all my vehicles. I'm such a dare-devil...
My god! Call the government, I am thinking for myself and am defying their attempts to think for me!
