JMortensen

http://www.060calculator.com/ says 122 hp. That's the only calculator I could find for 0-60, and I would say it's a bit dodgy. You're doing 0-62, so add a few hp to the result. There are a lot more tools for the 1/4 mile, but you did the 400 meter which is just a bit shorter. Using a 1/4 mile calculator here: http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm it comes up with 119 and 138 hp using two different testing methods of ET and trap speed. These numbers should be at the wheel, but since 400 meters is slightly less than 1/4 mile they'll be a bit high. Let's use another dodgy assumption of 20% drivetrain loss which is probably a little high. 280ZX puts out 182 gross hp, so that would net 145. You could cam it, but I think the results you'll end up with will be rather similar to the stock L28, unless you go really big, and then you'll lose your bottom end power, which was the point of the build as I recall. You could gear it and get a torque converter setup for a diesel and optimize what you have there. Would it be worth it though? I'm thinking not. Especially when you again look at the L24 dyno plot from the ITS car and figure that an L28 with a longer stroke and larger bore and the same size cam should put out about the same torque curve, if not have more torque lower than the L24 (theory borne out by it's lower redline), and a stock engine won't be as tweaked for high rpm performance as the ITS engine.

I had a Toyota motor with plastic guides that broke. Then one day (at my wedding reception actually, which was not the same day as the wedding day) I went to leave and turned the key and my timing chain broke. Luckily my friend was there and yelled at me not to turn the motor over again, he knew exactly what had happened. Anyway a piece of the plastic guide had gotten between the chain and crank gear and that's what snapped it. Luckily since it happened at 200 rpm and I didn't keep trying to start it, only one valve was bent. We replaced the chain at my in-law's place and drove home on 3 1/2 cylinders. So yeah, those pieces might sit there in the bottom of the pan and do nothing for thousands of miles. Or they might not.

So you think the reason for the discrepancy is that the scales are off? Seems like your V6 and 6 speed would move the weight back a lot. Might be that it actually is heavier, and the weight is just farther back. A turbo car with a FMIC and associated plumbing seems like it should have more weight on the nose.

Sounds like you had roughly 80 lbs worth of extra gas on board compared to your last weigh in. Is the new iteration better for carrying the extra 120 lbs? Is the power better, or the chassis noticeably stiffer, handling improved, etc? Or does it feel heavier, less responsive, etc?

You've got a point there. My main issue was if the housing is cast iron it would be hard to weld on mounts. Since you are correct that people weld on the axle tubes, I suppose it isn't cast iron. Still, the aluminum housing of the 8.8 IRS diff and the fact that you wouldn't need to make the mounts and weld them on are attractive features for that diff.

It's cool, I wasn't the first person to post a link to it either. I just saw a new post in this thread and thought "Hey I wonder if that's another link to the HF bandsaw" and sure enough. I guess we all like it.

Hey, have you seen this bandsaw? Just thought it needed a 5th posting in this thread. http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=93762

Why would you try to convert an 8.8 to independent when you can get an independent 8.8 out of an explorer like in your ebay link? You need to securely mount the housing to install the diff. If you started with a straight axle, there are no ears cast into the iron housing to attach to a subframe or mustache bar. If you went with the IRS 8.8 then you would have attachment points built into the housing, much better for ease of installation. Tough to tell from a picture, but the one in the auction almost looks like an aluminum housing. On the 9, I'm SURE somebody has done an IRS version of it, and I think it would be easier to start off with someone else's housing than trying to mod a stock cast iron one. At least try to find a steel housing that you could weld to in order to attach it to the car.

I would fix them. I had rust (although not that bad) in the same spots. I cut a large section out and welded in some sheet metal. The tough part is where the metal is folded over on the edge. You pretty much have to just keep cutting until you get rid of the rust, then make yourself a panel. I think Tabco might have patch panels for that part of the car, but I just used flat sheet because there isn't much going on there and it's pretty easy to bend it to fit.

Springs and retainers and valve stem seals. There is a sticky in this forum about improved valve stem seals, they are Ford V6 seals, you can get them from any corner store and they're shorter and use a better material for the seal than stock. If you do those seals with Schneider springs and retainers, you should be good to go.

Found a set of 45 pump nozzles, so added those to the auction.

Search "bumpsteer adjustable tie rod end" and I think you'll find my thread on my tie rods. In the control arm FAQ post there are pictures of bjhines' implementation of the same idea.

I wonder if there's a reason for the similarity.

In theory I think the carbs alone should be worth $1100 or so. Then you add another $480 of jets (16 sets of 6 @ $5 each), the chokes, the ITG, the airhorns, and its a good combination of long manifold and big carbs, etc. I too am interested to see what it does. I was surprised to see over 120 visits to the auction already. So far I think it's looking good...

I think he meant this one:

Kinda doing this on two forums, so there will be a little repetition here. I ran a basically stock L28 with SU's and a medium sized cam for several years before I got Mikunis. .490/280 cam and SU's is a GREAT combo. When I bought the cam my friend (who actually sold it to me) was telling me how it was going to be too big, I'd have no bottom end, etc. After I installed it and took him for a ride, he immediately ordered a bigger cam for his 510. He had been running high lift short duration cams and had sold one of those to me previously, but the results were less than spectacular.

Changing the blade would help some, but part of it is the inherent crappiness of the machine, loose pivots, angles are not exact, etc. It's possible the 12" is better than the 10. Put it this way, the blade brake that slows the blade down after a cut worked 2 times. 3rd cut it didn't work any more. It still slows down faster than a saw without a brake, but not like it's supposed to.

Everything goes: carbs, manifold, jets, chokes, airhorns, ITG filters even the gas pedal if you want to trade me a stock pedal. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270402375374

SWEPCO 201. It's kind of off the wall. I believe it was originally designed for lubricating dairy machinery. For even more off the wall you can mix it 50/50 with ATF and run it in a trans to quicken up the shifting.

Looks good. Nice fab work.

I thought you weren't supposed to use abrasive blades on aluminum due to the risk of the blade exploding... Grumpy, I have that saw in 10" size. It works, but it doesn't cut square at all and in general is pretty crappy, blade deflects with pretty minimal pressure, etc. I would not buy one if you're looking to cut anything close to an accurate angle. I did work for a company that used an industrial chop saw for aluminum and they had a 12" 100 tooth carbide blade. They did not wax the blade or anything and it lasted a very long time, I think they replaced it once in the 3 years I worked there and the thing was running probably 20 hours a week, so the blade shouldn't be the hard part of the equation. If you have some time to kill I'd suggest Harbor Freight's metal cutting band saws, I say that because they really take a lot more time to finish a cut. I have the smallest one and have put it through it's paces, and in my opinion it is a much better piece of equipment for cutting metal. It is also not perfectly accurate, but I think its a lot better than my chop saw. I have this model (but in green) and they have bigger badder ones if you want a faster cut/bigger blade: http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=93762

I would suggest you make the parts wider to cover the front of the tire. Make a large flat splitter area in front of the tire. Even if the splitter doesn't stick out in front of the airdam it will still help force the air out around the wheelwell, causing a low pressure area.

Competition Car Suspensions is a good one.

5" of travel at the shock is way excessive for his application in my opinion. If he's going to run the car super low, he'll HAVE to have very stiff springs. If you have very stiff springs, you don't need the travel. The droop travel on a car with 400 in/lb springs is going to be 1.5", I have a tough time seeing why he would need more than 3-4" total travel at the WHEEL with spring rates like that. If he doesn't want spring rates that high then the only choice is to raise the car up. With a mismatch of very low ride height and soft springs I think hitting the chassis on the ground (hard) is a very real possibility. In practical terms I think he wants to have 5" of shock travel but will run the car at the bottom of the available range. That's wasted effort. Having 5" of droop travel on a car with 7" of wheel travel and springs so stiff that it is only drooping an inch or inch and a half is just not useful, and the positive effects of droop limiting seem to indicate that it is a step backwards in terms of improving handling.

Tires run into fenderwells before they run into 2.5" coilovers in my experience. It would be a lot more useful on a car that had underbody aero that the struts were interfering with, I think. bart628, I think the info you have there is wrong. Cary aka tube80z was talking about this unsprung weight issue on another thread, and there is a logical argument that says that when the wheel travels, the spring and shock still have to be moved. Since the weight is moved when the suspension is moved it doesn't become part of the sprung weight and remains unsprung. Here's one discussion of the same topic: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=159112&page=11