Chickenman

That looks exactly what he's done. You can see the Tig welding where he cut off the diesel flange and welded on the TB flange. Waste of time IMHO because it breaks just about every rule of designing an Intake manifold for a gasoline engine. Runners are too long for a gasoline engine ( Diesels are low RPM Torque monsters and long runners help there) , but injector placement is the worst point and is just really, really bad. Note to self. Don't try and modify Diesel intake manifolds for gasoline engines. The design criteria are totally different.

I'd be concerned about fuel puddling in the drop elbow. The injectors are spraying at 90 degrees to the air flow and pointed directly at the back wall. That's not good....

For a Turbo car I'd go standalone EFI every day. Triple Carbs are tricky enough to Tune correctly on a normally aspirated car. When using forced induction you either have to enclose all of the carburetors in an Air box ( and then you can't see them... so what's the point? ) , or modify them to be boost referenced, It's not for the faint hearted or noobies. Independent TB's on a Turbo car are nice, but big coin and a properly designed " Racing " plenum manifold will make just as much power with less complexity. Note: I do not consider the factory manifold to be a " Proper Race " Plenum manifold. But it alright for a starting point. Especially on a first project. Fuel injection is not easy stuff either, but with EFI you have reday made Turbo base Maps and a wealth of EFI tuning available on forums. Modified blow through Turbo carbs... not so much. And you can get EFI systems with Engine Fail Safes designed into the software, so if something goes wrong ( IE: too lean AFR etc ) the ECU will intervene and cut boost etc. Accuracy, data logging, ease of Tuning and Fail Safe software are all advantages EFI has over carbs in a Turbo application. You may also want to ask yourself. If this is your first project, maybe you should stick with a less daunting task? Build it normally aspirated with a mild Compression ratio ( 9.0 to 1 is more than high enough ). Then you can Turbo later as you gain experience. Turbo engines can get very expensive in a hurry if you aren't 100% sure of what you are doing...

Where did you get the spacers for the Top hat? I'm getting some CO's made right now and that would be a good addition. TIA.

You can always add more rear bite with a more aggressive rear brake pad compound as well. Or shoes if you have drums brakes. ( Carbon Metallic shoes )

Actually, you can get a significant improvement in rear braking effect by installing an adjustable proportioning valve hooked up to the rear brakes. The factory proportioning valve has a set point. It is usually set very conservative so that you always have considerable front brake bias. Lawyers consider that safe for Grandma and Grandpa..... Standard valves may have a minimum set point of 40% to 50% reduction in pressure. FWD cars even higher. However, an adjustable proportioning valve ( Hydraulic ) has a much wider range of adjustment. You can adjust them so that it always allows 100% of line pressure to the rear. So no pressure reduction at all. Net result, more rear braking. However, you do have to remove the factory rear proportioning valve and replace it with a straight through coupler. You should never run two proportioning valves on the same circuit. I've done this on many Autocross and Hillclimb cars and have found that replacing the factory rear proportioning valve with an adjustable one ( WilWood or similar ) has allowed me to crank in more than enough rear brake bias to maximize rear braking. To the point of getting rear brake lock before front on stock systems. I like a lot or rear brake on my Autocross cars. Helps rotate the car on turn in and eliminates understeer. Adjustable proportioning valves do have limits. Exception being where larger brakes are installed on the front and the rear brakes are left stock. In that situation even 100% line pressure to the rear brakes ( no pressure reduction ) may be enough.

Found it. Video of Renault V8 engine. Circa 2004. These were the years of 20,000 RPM's!! Note the Individual Throttle body injectors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iBbwocYZw Edit: Google Turbulent Jet Injection for some interesting reading: http://www.enginelabs.com/news/f1-tech-what-is-turbulent-jet-ignition/ The Mahle system is a developement of HCCI ( Homogenous Chage Compression Ignition ). HCCI systems were developed way back in the 70's and known as Stratified charge engines. One of the more succesful designs was Honda's CVCC engine. Back then electronic fuel injection was not yet developed. Honda relied on a mechanical method ( 3 valves per cylinder, two inlet tracts and a 3 barrel carburator ) to achive their golas. As Direct petrol Injection engines have recently developed, stratified combustion chamber ( HCCI ) designs were re-surrected, so to speak. Mahle has now taken that a step further with their Turbulent Jet Ignition system. Piston top designs are very complex these days and Ferrari has recently annouced that it is developing 3D printed Steel pistons for their 2017 and 2018 F1 engines. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferrari-eyes-innovative-piston-solution-thanks-to-3d-printing-870008/?utm_source=en&utm_medium=HomePage&utm_campaign=GiorgioPiolaWidget

Actually Tim, my first reply was in regards to Max power. It was the opposite to what you were discussing ( Sequentail and olw rpm advantages ), but I thought I made that pretty clear. My replay was for a caution to OP that the stock 188cc injectors may be adequate for batch fire at high rpm's, but not if he goes to fully timed sequential. Then we all got into the discussion of the different " types " of sequential injection strategy. The SDS link I supplied sums the situation up very eloquently to the situation I was warning about. So really, just a difference of what we were all visualizing in our heads. That's why discussions over Beers are great. After a few beers you forget what you were discussing and just start chasing the waitresses... LOL Edit: Yes, sequential has very littel effec5t on max power cfompared to sequential. In fact F1 engines in the V8 and V10 era used Multipoint injcetion with individual throttle body injectors. At 20,000 rpm it was better to jsut inject straight into the plenum and let use a wet plenum system. That all changed with the V6 turbo engines and heavily restricted fuel flow regulation. Direct injection was the only way they could make the power and fuel economy they needed. I'll see if I can find the video of the Renault V8 at full chat. It's quite interesting the injector design. Was also reading an article the other day that passenger car manufactures are now achieving AFR as low as 30 to 1 at cruise with Jet Flame fuel injection. Which is what Mercedes is running on their F1 cars and why they have had such a huge advantage the last few years. Good discussion

Blue Tokico shocks are HP's.

2: Respectfully. Not confusing Sequential injection with Direct injection at all. Quite familiar with operation of both types of systems. This is more of a difference in terminology than anything else. Sequential injection can be different things to different manufacturers. Full sequential injection is timed to the Intake stroke and is only 1 squirt per 720 crank degrees. This is what I was referring to and why it has relevance when changing from a Batch Fire or Multi point system to FULL sequential. Batch fire can use smaller injectors than FULL sequential injectors to achieve the same HP level, because the Batch fire system has 2 squirts per 720 degrees and has more time to inject the required amount of fuel. IDC is not the same as Time in milliseconds to inject the required amount of fuel. They are two entirely separate issues and where people often get confused in injector sizing differences between Batch fire and Full Sequential. The SDS link covers the difference in injector sizing requirements quite clearly. It is a considerable difference. Adding to the confusion is the difference in meaning of Sequential. My reference was to fully Timed sequential, where you have one squirt per 720 degrees and it is timed to Intake event. This is the common approach to maximize fuel economy, driveability and emissions. There is also a 2 squirt system as you mentioned, but this is not a true timed sequential system. It is more of a Semi-Sequential, which may be what MS is referring to. A modern Fully Timed FI strategy is basically the same as Direct Injection, in regards to OTTO cycle timing. Cam timings of engine are required in both. Only the method of fuel injection varies. Semi or partial Sequential injection is not the same thing as fully timed Sequential. Relevance to OP situation is that the factory injectors at 188cc may not be large enough if he goes to Fully Timed Sequential injection with his MS 3 ECU. Especially if he has modified the engine for more HP. I contacted " FuelInjectorman " about converting from batch fire to full sequential on my 280Z and they also warned me to up the injector size if I went with the 1 squirt per 720 degrees option. I agree 100% with the your comments about sequential injection at low injector pulse widths. But that's not what I was referring too at all. 3: Comment on E85 was not in rerference to OP situation. Just that injector technology has improved immensely since 10 or even 5 years ago. You can get 1,000cc injectors to operate smoothly and efficiently at 1 ms these days. Done all the time with E85. You'd never need an injector that big in a pump gas car, unless you had a a big CI Pro Mod motor on gasoline. And for that see #4. #4 : Increase in modern fuel rail pressures was just a general observation. Not referring at all to OP situation. But it is relevant to fuel efficiency and emissions in modern cars. Higher fuel rail pressures provides better atomization of the fuel . Nothing more, nothing less. Direct injection takes that to the extreme. Modern fuel injectors can safely operate at 5 Bar and well above. Older designs, such as found on a 280Z , could not. You'd get pintle leak and other issues with too high of rail pressures. Edit. Almost forgot to add the HP advantage of higher rail pressures. Higher rail pressures allow you to use a smaller injector on a high boost car than what could previously be used. That plus improved injector designs allow good idle quality, because the more modern injectors can easily handle a 1ms rate. This gives better fuel atomization at idle over a big injector at a lower rail pressure. At the same time, you can run the smaller injector with out running out of fuel at high boost and RPM's. FYI: USRT is a pioneer on high pressure injectors. Their Genesis 2 injector operating range is 3 Bar up to 8 BAR!! http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5864051-**USRT-Fueling-Solutions-Presents-The-Genesis-II-Injector** Good discussion. Better over beers. I think we're just visualizing things a bit different but essentially on the same channel....

Why don't you just cut the hose nipple off the end of the bleeder that is touching the header? . Cut it flush ( Dremel ) with the end of the bleeder nut. Bleeder still works and you gain 1/4" of clearance. I've done that before to gain clearance to Mikuni air horns.

Fortuantely, large pulse widths at low RPM's are not the issue that they used to be. Injector fidelity has increased immensely over the last few years. Guys running E85 with 1,000 cc or larger injectors are having no issues running pulse widths as low as 1 to 1.5 ms. USRT Genesis and Genesis 2 injectors are a favorite of the Big Turbo VW/Audi crowd ...or really anything that uses a modern Bosch injector. Common Big Turbo rail pressures are now up to 4 and 5 bar. Higher rail pressures = better fuel atomization .

^ However, the opposite is true in the upper RPM ranges. Participated on a Web seminar hosted by HP Academy last nite and managed to stump the moderator on a question regarding required differences in injector sizing between Batch Fire and Sequential. For a given HP range batch fire has more time to inject the amount of fuel needed than sequential. Say you are running Batch Fire or Multipoint and your engine makes 200 HP. Not going to do the Math but that requires XX cc/min of fuel. Batch and Multipoint gives two sprays per 720 degrees ( OTTO Cycle ) to inject the required amount of fuel. Batch and Multipoint are referred to as untimed injection. They basically squirt tow big whacks of fuel into the Intake manifold and let the engine sort things out. Juts like a carburator and Plenum manifold. Edit: Full Sequential is timed injection and it only gives one squirt per 720 degrees and that squirt is usually timed to the Intake cycle when Intake flow is established. Thus you have a far shorter time to inject the same amount of fuel. It can That can cause issues with converting from Batch Fire to Sequential fuel injection if you do not take into account that you have may have to use a larger injector when upgrading to sequential. Simple Digital Systems has a very good Tech article on why you have to watch injector sizing when upgrading from Batch Fire/Multipoint to Sequential. Interesting reading: http://www.sdsefi.com/techseq.htm

A complete combustion event in a 4 cycle ( OTTO cycle )engine consisted of Intake Cycle, Compression Cycle , Power Cycle and Exhaust Cycye. Each complete cycle takes Two revolutions. 720 degrees. During a complete combustion event, the piston comes up to TDC at BOTH the Compression cycle and the Exhaust cycle. For sequential Fuel and COP Ignition the ECU has to know what CYCLE the piston is on when it hits TDC. Compression or Exhaust cycle. And that requires a Cam sensor. Read about 4 cycle engines operations as suggested please... I've edited post number #4 to make things a bit clearer for you.

Edit: Sequential injection requires a Crank and Cam position sensor. Cam signal is often called " Home " signal. ECU needs to know when #1 piston is at TDC on the Compression/Power stroke, other wise it can't do sequential Fuel injection or Coil On Plug ignition. Edit: Multipont ( all injectors fire at once, twice per 720 degrees ) or Batch fire Fuel injection with a Dizzy Ignition can be done with a only the RPM signal ( crank sensor) . Spark plugs and injectors fire twice in 720 degrees. One at TDC on the compression stroke and once at TDC on the Exhaust stroke. Since there is no compression ( Exhaust stroke ) and no Air/ Fuel mix, no combustion occurs. That is why it is called " Wasted Spark ". Fuel doesn't have to be timed any near as accurately as spark. Ford EDIS can do wasted Spark with only a crank signal. Fuel will still only be Multipoint or Batch fire.

^ Saw that on Church of L-Series.. LOL

Rock Auto has Wagner, Centric and Dorman cylinders available for the 1973. Reasonable ( dirt cheap ) prices.

No, it was the rough spot. If you can feel a " rough " spot through your fingers, the bearing is bad enough to make noise. I remember seeing a demonstration by Ford back in the early 80's. They had a new Ultrasonic testing machine that automatically spun and listened to every bearing as it came down the production line. In the Demo, they had a test bench setup with this machine. They tested a new, but faulty bearing, on the Ultrasonic machine. Oscilliscope showed all the harmonic peaks etc indicating that this bearing was starting to fail, even though it passed the old production line inspection. They then took a BNIB bearing out, randomly of the Ford inventory to apparently show what a " good " bearing should look like. The new bearing was even worse than the than the faulty one!! The instructor was on his toes though. He quickly stated, "Errr... I guess this was old stock ".... LOL. Point being, a bearing can make noise, and you may not even be able to feel the defect with your fingers. If you can feel it... you know the bearing is bad.

I'm looking forward to getting the 280Z out to some Autocrosses this year. PO had the car and quite frankly it was a car show Queen. It was OK mechanically, but lack of driving and maintenance showed. I think I put more miles on it 2 short years than PO did in the last 10 years. But it's coming along. lack of a garage is slowing things up. Underground parking in Apartment complex is not a good place to be swapping out suspensions etc... LOL. Plus I'm not as young as I used to be. Hopefully I'll get the coil -overs done this year and the rear disc conversion. Oh yeah, and new seats. And remove the Park bench bumpers band side skirts etc. Gettin' there...

Good article. Here's the part about Spring rates /Frequency I was referring to about:

Seattlejester. I read the same articles by John Coffey and agree about the Chassis flex and spring rates over #300 in the front. The 240z is very flexy up front. The 280z is a bit better due to the thicker gauge frame rails and full length frame rails. But chassis stiffness is nothing like modern cars. I think I've read that post about rear spring rates being higher on the rear of Z cars being higher than the front. But see if you can find it again. The one I read was talking more about Torsional chassis stiffness. The rear being stiffer, in Torsion, than the front.

I purposely did not mention the rear suspension on the 510's because it is vastly different from the front and the Z car. Rear spring rates are often in the 800 to 1,000 . The motion ratio is around 3.8 to 1, so an 800 lb/in rear spring only equates to a 210 lb/in wheel rate. As for the front, the motion ratio's are virtually the same. In fact most of the hard core 510 guys here are using 280ZX struts. Those are preferred over 240Z or 280Z struts, I believe because of the KP inclination. As for the rear spring rates, it comes down to more of a preference. Stiff rear spring no rear bar or slightly softer with a rear bar. For street or dual purpose cars I prefer the latter as it is less jarring to the driver and is more forgiving over bumps. I've raced both ways and either way can turn identical lap times. Softer springs are more forgiving though... particularly in the rain. Bear in mind that the tern " soft rear springs " are relative . A 250 lb/in rear spring is a large increase over stock rates. Having the nose dive under braking is not beneficial. Weight transfer under braking naturally transfers weight to the front and reduces vertical load on the rear tires. That reduces the braking capability of the rear tires. If the car dives in the front, that changes the roll axis of the car along the center plane and the CG shifts forward. That further reduces rear braking capability as even more vertical load is removed from the rear tires. Compared to if the car remained more level. All tires have a " Bell Curve that equates tire grip level to vertical load. Go over or under that peak and you reduce traction. It is key element in understanding the Traction Circle. Most cars have Anti-dive engineered into the front suspension. Race cars have a lot of anti-dive. However, McPherson struts do not allow a huge amount of anti-dive to be built in, as compared to a Double A-Arm or Multilink suspension. Increasing spring rate in the front relative to the rear maintains a stable platform by increasing anti-dive under braking. Since braking G-Forces can be much higher than acceleration forces, it makes sense to run a higher spring rate in front than in the rear. Many amateur racers have too little rear brake bias, either through chassis setup or personal driving style. What they are effectively doing is taking away a percentage of braking capability by not using the full capacity of the rear brakes. ABS takes a lot of the braking skill away from the driver as it allows the engineers to crank in more rear brake than a non-ABS car, without the fear of Grandma or GrandPa swapping ends under a panic stop. Being able to run more rear brake bias is also handy for an experienced racer in rotating the car for corner entry. One of the reasons why you always see F1 drivers tweaking the brake balance before corner ( No ABS allowed in F1 or Indy Car ) . More rear brake bias for slow, tight corners to rotate the rear and get the nose to turn in and less rear brake bias on high speed corners because you want a tad of under-steer. All FWIW and just my opinions and experiences. As I mentioned, there will be lots of opinions on this and nothing sparks a discussion more than chassis setup... other than Republicans vs Democrats... but lets not go there!!!

BTW, if you are looking for good springs ( Coil Overs ) at a reasonable price, check out the Circle Track suppliers. I use PitStopUSA. Hard core parts at reasonable prices, cause there are short tracks everywhere in the USA. Hypercoils are a very good brand. Cheaper than Eibach's and every bit as good. A nice compact camber plate can be found on E-Bay. No major cutting of wheel housing required, just some slight enlongation of center hole to allow for the shock shaft to move in and out: http://www.ebay.com/itm/MK1-PillowBall-Bearing-Strut-Upper-Mount-For-Coilover-Kit-Mounts-Plates-240Z-/161203739866?fits=Model%3A240Z&hash=item25887ddcda:g:CwUAAOxygPtS3Kbw&vxp=mtr

Every body has there own setup ideas. It really all depends on what you are comfortable with. Personally, I think spring rates above 300 lbs in the rear are too high for a street car or dual purpose car. Track days do complicate the issue, because a lot of the setup depends on the Tracks you run on. Just my .02c... Because the driver sits so far back in a Z car, you tend to feel jarring from the back more. Just my personal feeling from driving many miles on the I5. Nothing worse that that thump, thump thump in Washington State ( Concrete slab construction ) in a stiffly sprung car . I've also been driving Big HP RWD cars with beam axles for a long time. Those tend to get very skittish in the rear when spring rates get too high. Independent rear suspension tends to be more forgiving. If you find the rear spring rate too harsh you can always swap out the springs to a lower rate and add a rear bar. You have a Torsen LSD so inside wheel spin is not an issue. Not that it ever has been an issue on any Z cars that I have driven with a rear bar and open diff. Another consideration is that these old chassis were never very stiff. The guys with the 510's that are running 300 lb springs up front have all seam welded the chassis and reinforced them in the spring seat area's such as front wheel well. Strut bars front and rear help a lot. Front strut bar benefits from being triangulated. On a personal note to my setup methology. Most of the time during my Motorsports activities I have been driving medium to big HP RWD cars with beam axles. These get very skittish over bumps if you get the rear springs too stiff. Softer springs in the rear also allow you to put the power down sooner and harder on corner exit over a car with a more stiffly sprung rear end. Pony cars make up their time on the straights. So early power down on corner exit is extremely important to us. Big Pony cars drivers like to Diamond the corners. They are not momentum cars like Miata's. IRS cars are less sensitive to the bumps and put power down much better than a beam axle ( in general ). But there are Pro's and Cons for each method.

Received my Pallnet Fuel rail in double quick time. Quality looks fantastic. Thanks Peter!!