wheelman

RPMS, I agree with you but the statistics calculations being used don't account for the fact that the car is only behind 1 door. The idea is that your odds are better if you change your selection because you would have chosen the 1 door with the car at some point in the process, not that you ended up on the correct door. This discussion reminds me of a book I've read several times called "In Search of Schrodinder's Cat". The book is a laymans description of the theories of Quantum Physics. It tries to explain the fact that its not possible to simultaneously measure the velocity and position of a sub-atomic particle and the implications this has on the reality of how the universe works. This is called the Paully (sp) Exclusion Principle and it states that to measure either the position or velocity of the particle makes the other property non-measurable. This experiment with the three doors is similar in that the reality of which door the car is behind is not established until after the choices have been made and if you change your selection you will have effectively selected the correct door at some point even though it may not have been your final selection. Not exactly the same as Schrodinger's Cat which is alive and dead at the same time in the experiment in the book but similar in that as far as you know the car is behind both doors at the same time and the reality of where it really is is only established by interacting with the experiment. If no interaction is made with the experiment nothing can be said about where the car is, so it's behind all the doors and so is the donkey. I know this probably doesn't make sense unless you've studied quantum physics and even then it doesn't make sense. Assuming I described it in enough detail this should bother you. Wheelman

Sorry to disappoint you akeizm. I was just so happy to finally finish the thing I had to share with everyone. It's been in my garage for about 2 months now and I've been working on it when I can. Anyway now that time can be spent on my Z, which is almost totally dis-assembled and the wife's hunny-do-list. I could post pictures of my Z but they would frighten you. My kids call it FrankenZ right now but I am making progress on it. I'm about ready to weld in patch panels where I removed the standard battery tray rust and then its time to replace the fuel and brake lines, once thats done the driveline will be installed, at that point I'll post some pictures, but don't be frightened. Wheelman

It could probably be done if you are very frugal and do all the work yourself but it will be tight. Check out this site: http://zcar.netdojo.com Wheelman

No not the Z unfortunately. I've been rebuilding the engine from a 1992 Sentra. It's a 1.6 liter GA16DE. A family friend asked me to check out the engine because it had a bad knock and they offered to pay me. Their 17 year old son had been driving it and wasn't checking the oil. So I agreed to tear it down and find the problem. Turned out it had spun the number 4 rod bearing and pretty much destroyed the others. It was quite a project as I hadn't worked on one these before. I had one of those epic struggles getting the right side axle out which you have to do in order to pull the engine. Once I got it tore down and sent to the machine shop it turned out the head was warped and the crank had to be sent to Portland to reground. Anyway it's finally finished and I'll get it out of my garage tomorrow. Turns out these are pretty impressive little engines. DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, EFI and variable valve timing. They are setup for torque with a long stroke and relatively small bore. The numbers 1-2 and 4-5 main bearing caps are tied togther into a single piece. Those things aren't going to move at all. Best part is they are paying me $1200.00 for my time plus parts so now I'll have some more funds for the Z. Wheelman

Vegeta, I have to take exception to calling the interface between the lifters and push-rods a friction point. I also wouldn't classify the cam follower to valve stem interface a friction point either, unless you count the rotation of the follower, if they rotate. I agree with you whole heartedly about loving HybridZ, this place is the best for getting good technical help and participating in discussions like this without it degenerating into name calling. I recently worked on a Nissan GA16DE engine for friends and the head is very complicated. It has a special timing chain for the 2 cams that is separate from but driven by the main timing chain driven by the crank. It also uses shim type adjustments which require removal of both timing chains to get the cams out to replace the shims. Both chains have their own tensioners and can contribute to valve timing drift. I like the idea of the cam directly actuating the valves but it gets complicated. I also have to say that I like the "Coolness" factor of the multi-cam 4 valve heads and know thay have the potential to make gobs of power but my checkbook shudders at the thought of putting them on a SBC. After reading this thread I gave serious thought to scrapping the LT1 project and using a Toyota 1UZ-FE 4 liter 32 valve V8. These engines are relatively cheap and make good HP stock but it turns out there aren't many after market parts and the replacement parts are expensive when repairs are required. Anyway it comes down to cost vs HP and it's impossible to beat a SBC for that!!! Wheelman

OK Pete, I'm suitably humbled. Your correct about the push-rods not flexing, when I wrote that I was thinking about something else and didn't catch the mistake. I think what I was after may have been rocker flex but that doesn't make sense either when I think about it, or maybe rocker stud flex. Anyway the idea was that there isn't much room in the OHV push-rod design for valve timing drift issues like you can get the long timing chain and all it's momentum especially if you use solid lifters. Wheelman

Vegeta, You keep saying that an OHC either single or double will have fewer moving parts and less friction. Lets stop a second and think about this. The friction points will be at followers/lifters, rockers (cam/pivot/pushrod/valve stem), cam journals, valve stems, valve springs and timing chain/belt. The valve stem and spring loads are the same with 2 valve heads but double with 4. Assume the cams have the same number of journals, we'll say 5 for the sake of argument. An "old style" push rod V8 has 1 cam, 16 lifters (some with rollers), 16 push-rods, 16 rockers (possibly rollers) and 1 timing chain. The friction points are the cam journals (5), the lifters (16), the rockers (32, push-rod and valve) and the timing chain (2). Total 55 SOHC: 2 valves per cylinder 2 cams, 16 rockers, 2 timing belts/chains Cams (10), rockers (32 cam contact and valve), chains/belts (4) Total 46 SOHC: 4 valves per cylinder 2 cams, 16 rockers, 2 timing belts/chains Cams (10), rockers (48 cam contact and valve), chains/belts (4) Total 62 DOHC: 4 valves per cylinder 4 cams, 32 cam followers, 2 timing belts/chains Cams (20), Followers (32), chains/belts (4) Total 56 The SOHC setup has the fewest contact points but the long timing chains/belts with the required tensioners and momentum at high RPMS creates a failure point and contributes to timing drift. Unless some type of hydraulic "lifter" setup is used it also requires periodic vavle train adjustment and there is no way to use VVT. If the hydraulic lifters are used then the pump-up problem appears. Add 4 valves per cylinder and it gets even worse with the complicated rocker assembly. Ever tried to work on one of these? The DOHC setup has almost the same number of contact points as the push-rod and the added advantage of no rocker assembly. This setup is the optimal from a simplicity stand-point, direct actuation of the valve by the cam. But it has the dis-advantage of the long timing chain/belt and in most cases causes the head to be larger. This setup doesn't necessarily imply 4-valves, Fiat made a DOHC with 1 cam for intake an 1 for exhaust with 2 valves/cylinder, but all newer engines with DOHC have 4. The big dis-advantage I run into with these is again maintenance. You have to use shims to adjust follower to cam clearance which requires the cams be removed, not difficult but still can be a PITA. Anyway, as we've all been discussing each setup has advantages and dis-advantages and to say that the OHC designs have fewer moving parts simply because the push-rods aren't there is not completely true. I will agree that the push-rod system can have more timing drift at high rpm due to rod flex and lifter pump-up but the long chain/belt of the OHC design has the same problem because the chain or belt stretches due to it's length and weight at higher rpms. In my opinion thw worst setup is the SOHC, it has the longer chain issue and the complexity of all the rockers. Just my $.02 worth. If I made any mistakes in my simplified analysis please point them out. Wheelman

Datsunlover, When you say that the V8s of 1970 made little more power than the l24 in the 240Z I think you are actually refering to the smog era engines of the mid to late 70s. Those engines were so choked with emissions things they could hardly run let alone make HP. All engines had those problems. If you look at the stock power output of the Z motors the 1970-1971 240 had the most HP of all. Datsun was forced to increase the displacement to allow the motors to pass smog and make HP. As for old tech VS new tech / low VS high we need to take a hard look at this arguement. The basic design of the internal combustion engine hasn't really changed since the first were built and all the "High Tech Innovations" attributed to "imports" had been tried in the dark past, except for electronic controls. So our engines are all relatively low tech compared to advances in other areas of science and engineering. As for qualilty of imports VS domestic. There used to be a real difference but now that the domestic companies have had to compete with the imports for long enough their quality has increased dramatically. My impression is that most of the guys argueing the imports are better want to compare 80s era engines. Not a fair comparison. But compare a 90s era import to an LT1 or a Ford 5.0L and they compare very well as far as reliability. Most of the problems I've had with the newer cars weren't mechanical but electronic and all makes suffer equally with quality problems there. Wheelman

Bastaad525, When was the last time the cooling system was flushed? I have a Ford Ranger pickup that acted the same way your car is acting. I ended up having to replace the radiator and flush the block to correct it. Not what you wanted to hear but maybe a simple flush will fix it. As for it running hotter when on the freeway than in traffic, could it be that on the highway your on boost and the engine is working harder than it is when in traffic? If the radiator is slightly plugged or a passage in the block or head is obstructed it might do that. Are you sure no gasket material got into one of the cooling passages in the head when the gasket blew? I'm no expert but I would think that running at 200* won't hurt your engine. If I remember correctly most newer engines run hotter to reduce emissions and aluminum is used as head, block and piston material in a lot of them. Running rough at higher temps could simply be that the ignition has been retarded to reduce pre-ignition or the engine is on the verge of ping and just doesn't burn the fuel as efficiently. I'm just guessing so don't put to much credence in what I'm saying. Anyway if I were you I would flush the radiator and then continue to keep an eye on it if the temps are still high. Wheelman

RPMS, JTR redesigned the rad support to bolt to the bottom of the frame rail. Try it that way. Wheelman

Michael, It sounds to me like you've already made up your mind and know best because you think you have it all figured out. I already posted what I thought above so I'll keep this short. Don't mortgage your future for a car!!! It's not worth it!!! Don't abandon the idea of continuing your education to quickly, just because you don't consider yourself "College Material" doesn't mean you shouldn't get some type of training. It will only benefit you later and good jobs require some skills that take time to develop. As for buying a Z that has already been Hybridized. Ask yourself why someone who puts enough time into a car to do a good job would sell it at a price you can afford!!!! I know that when mine is complete, if it ever is, I won't sell it unless I'm forced to and then it won't be cheap. My last word will be to again tell you to be patient, the world isn't going to end tomorrow and you're just starting your life. Make sure you have your priorities correct. Wheelman

I agree with everything said so far. I was 19 when I got my first Z, a 260 and I loved that car. Even though the 260 is the dog of the group it's a very enjoyable car that will surprise you with its speed and handling. Save your money, find a GOOD Z with no rust and then take care of it for a few years before thinking about turning it into a hybrid. If you're struggling with low funds now you won't be able to afford to do a good job on the swap and have a car to drive at the same time. You're also going to find that your insurance rates will go up and they probably aren't cheap for you as it is. You also will want to have money available to start your life separate from your parents, at some point you will move out either to go to school, in the military or just to be away. Do you want to be "Car poor" and be trapped?? Listen to your parents and be patient, they aren't trying to ruin your fun but protect you from throwing your money away and/or killing yourself in a car you can't handle. Buying a Hybrid car of any type is always a risky proposition unless you are intimately familiar with it already. You don't know what went into it, how long it's been since parts were replaced, what the exact parts are and how hard it's been driven since being put together. These are high performance cars after all and we build them to be driven and driven hard. Not that they aren't taken care of but you never know. Wheelman

The PMs hang in the Outbox until the person they are for picks them up. Kind of non-intuitive but thats what happens. The difference between Outbox and Sentbox is the Outbox is where messages that have been sent but not pickup up yet are held while the sentbox contains all the messages that have been sent and received. Wheelman. P.S. At least this is what I've guessed from watching what happens to PMs I've sent.

Steve-Z, I used a Performer RPM on a 302 I put into 1970 2 wheel drive pickup back in the early 90s. I had built the motor for a Maverick I was going to race but the car was rear-ended and totalled before I could drop the motor in. Anyway the engine was bored 30 over, had a relatively mild cam, large valves (1.9" intake, 1.6" exhaust) in 289 guide-plate heads, roller rockers, ~9:1 CR, the edelbrock intake and a Carter 650 AFB carb. In that particular truck it was almost to much power. The front end was very loose and you had to herd the thing down the road. Anyway the engine really came alive between 2000-2500 RPM and pulled hard to redline. Like the prior poster said, you won't go wrong with either manifold but I had a very good experience with the Performer RPM. The quality was very good, never had any leaks or cracks. I wouldn't reccommend the Carter AFB or Edelbrock carbs though. I was always having to clean the metering rods as they would get stuck and either starve or flood the engine. I would definitely go with a Holley, or better yet step up to fuel injection. Wheelman

Gollum, If you are seriously considering a V8 swap then be sure to get the Datsun Z V8 swap manual from JTR (jagsthatrun.com). The manual is biased toward putting a small block chevy into a Z but it still contains a lot of useful information. When I started doing research into swapping a motor in my Z I had decided to use a Ford 302, partly because I'm a Ford guy and partly because they are lighter than a SBC. What I found is that you will need to do more fabrication (motor mounts primarily), finding headers that will clear the steering shaft is hard and replacing the cable based clutch if you go manual is an issue. I ended up finding a Chevy LT1 before a good 302 so I went with the Chevy after all. As far as the smog laws, that depends on your state and I'm not an expert as the state where I live doesn't have inspections so I'll let someone else answer that question as well as the question about 2 seat vs 4 seat. I would concentrate on finding a non 2+2 Z if I were you but it's all about personal preference. Wheelman

Dude, Put the tools down, slowly turn around, then RUN, don't walk, RUN!!!! Wheelman

Jeromio, Have you checked the drain hoses from the cavity right at the base of the windshield that provides outside air to the heating system? There are hoses that drain that area, they are routed behind the firewall through the cabin and out behind the fender on each side. They are very hard to see but it sounds like the one on your right side is loose or has a hole in it. If this is the case it would definitely drain a bunch of water into the footwell very quickly. I cut through my right hand one while removing a chunk of the firewall to get rid of rust. I need to pull it off and either replace or repair it. I plan on using some standard silicone sealant to try fixing it and then replace it if that doesn't work. Anyway just thought it was something else to check. Wheelman

Yes you can re-use the lifters. I've been pricing LT1 cams for the same purpose as you and they run around $300.00. I would imagine a cam for your engine will be similarly priced. I don't know what a spring set is going to run you but while your at it you might as well install roller rockers. I put a set on a Ford 302 years ago and they made a big difference in power and valve stem wear. You'll need to have the machine work done to allow higher lift numbers so include that in your calculations when figuring how much you'll be spending. Wheelman

BillZ260, Where in the RPM range are the HP and torque peaks? Remember this is a truck motor which means it was probably designed more for low end torque than high or mid-range HP. You might want to explore switching to a cam that moves the peak HP up in the RPM range depending on where it is right now. Just a thought as I'm not sure where the power band is, what you plan to use the car for or if you plan on running a manul or automatic transmission. Wheelman

I'm not 100% sure but I believe if you take all the parts from the 280 they will transfer to the 240. What year 240 are you working with? I know that the transmission crossmember design changed in 73 so that would be something to check into. The struts are different size from the 240 to the 280 but I'm pretty sure the diameter is the difference not the length but again I'm not 100% sure. The rear differential corssmember and mustache bar also changed in 72. Don't base your decision on my input here, mak sure to check it all out on your own. BTW if you have a 280 mustache bar your willing to sell I'm looking for one. Let me know about that and whether you want me to check into the T5 up here, just don't wait to long, they seem to be snapped up pretty fast. Wheelman

Storm, I went through the same exercise not to long ago although I'm not building to 400HP. I decided to get a World Class T5 and then later install an G-Force kit as a T5 won't hold up to more than 300 ft/lbs of torque for very long. Your other options for a 5-Speed include a Tremec TKO or TKO-II. They aren't going to be cheap though, new they are roughly the same price as a used T56 and then you will need to put together a bellhousing, fly-wheel clutch package that works. It took me several months to find a good deal on a WC T5 but I finally found one from an 89 Trans-Am and it turned out it had already been converted to use a speedo cable rather than a VSS. Although because I'm installing an LT1 I will need to connect a VSS to the speedo cable. I do know a local JY has an 89 Camaro Z28 with the 5-speed that should be a WC T5. I could find out what they want for it and get back to you. Should I find out for you? I have no idea how many miles are on it. It would cost about $80.00 to ship it if I remember correctly, but don't hold me to that. Wheelman

85zord, You said your car is an 85 Z, well that makes it a 300ZX which is a different animal from a first generation Z. As far as I know no-one has put a Ford 302 into a 300ZX so you may be the first so document it and keep us all informed. If your car is a 75 280Z then be sure to contact Al Silvera and buy his crossmember mount. His handle on this site is alsil and his website has already been listed. The crossmember is very well designed and made. You can use the tranny crossmember from JTR. If you go with the auto tranny the rest of it should be very much like a Chevy install. You might have to put a u-joint in the steering shaft to clear the header and build a speedo cable but not much else will be different from a Chevy install. I had planned to put a 302 in my 240 until I ran across a great deal on a Montana Cop car with an LT1, if I build another Z it will get a 302. Wheelman

Make sure it's a 5.7 liter (350CI). The 4.8, 5.3 and 6.0 liter Vortec engines used the same mounts as the LS1 and have multiple coils instead of a distributor. You might also want to change the oil pan to one that doesn't hang quite as low. Wheelman

I have to agree with Xander. It seems to me that if an engine is pumping a given CFM (cubic feet per minute) of air at a given RPM and the air/fuel ratio is at a reasonable level then if the RPMs are reduced and the air/fuel ratio isn't drastically reduced (richened) the amount of fuel injected into the air stream would reduce not increase. I know the mileage a car gets isn't totally dependant on RPM but to say that an engine running at 4200 RPM is burning less fuel than one running at 3000 RPM doesn't make sense to me. For that to work the engine running at 3000 RPM would have to have an air/fuel ratio roughly 1/3 richer than the engine turning 4200 RPM. If I'm missing something here please let me know. I understand that you can't necessarily say that the engine turning slower is running at the same efficiency level as one turning faster but just because an engine is running more efficiently at the higher RPM doesn't mean it burns less fuel per mile. Wheelman

Pop N Wood, My understanding of the change in toe when the strut is compressed or extend is caused by the change in the distance the wheel hub is from the center of the car as the control arm moves through it's arc. The distance increases and decreases, so if the control arm and tie rod are not parallel the distance of the end of each at a give point in the arc will be different. So if they aren't parallel and the strut is being compressed so the control arm is horizontally level the wheel hub will be at it's maximum distance from the center of the car but the tie rod end will be closer to the center which pulls the front of the tire toward the center of the car. As the strut either continues being compressed or extends the control arm will start to pull the hub toward the center of the car and the tie rod will either continue to pull the front of the tire in or start pushing it out depending on the part of it's arc the tie rod is moving through. This description is probably more confusing than not and a diagram would help but I'm not artist so I'll leave that to someone else. The camber changes are caused only by the control arm changing the distance the wheel hub is from the center of the car as it moves through it's arc. This is because the top of the strut acts as a pivot point and the top of the wheel hub is either pulled in or pushed out depending on which direction the control arm is moving the hub relative to the center of the car. At least this is my understanding so if I'm wrong on any of this stuff please correct me!!! Wheelman