dladow

I bought a relatively clean 1973 240z automatic with a tired 2.4L engine with every intention of swapping in an SBC 355 V8. I scrounged a running 350 that originated in a 1976 Chevrolet pick up and rebuilt it, mildly ported the 882 heads, bought shorty headers, the JTR conversion kit, redid the suspension with stiffer springs, and poly bushings all around, bought a rebuilt Craigslist 7R4 auto trans … and then an early 1974 260z parts car with a trashed rear suspension and ruined interior fell into my lap. I bought it for $400 for its straight rust free removable body parts, but also, it had not been licensed since 1989 and showed only 88K. It had a bone stock 2.6L with a 4 speed. I began to ponder the advantages of swapping in the 260 short block and trans (seeing as how they were now in stock). I could rebuild the engine with simply regrinding the crank, a light hone (the bores were in fantastic shape), new rings, and new bearings and fasteners. A previous owner had replaced the square top carbs with the round top 1972 version which I rebuilt. The 260 allegedly has the better intake manifold. Add headers, an MN47 mildly ported head (giving me about 10:1 CR), a lighter flywheel from the same donor Maxima, and a reground 270 degree cam from Delta in Tacoma, and that should be a pretty fun street engine in a 2400 lb car. Plus I would not have to worry about whether I should be upgrading to a beefier differential and half axles, triangular front strut bar, cage, and baddog frame rails due to the much higher torque (probably well north of 300) of the SBC. So in the end, I saved the SBC for another project, and went with the straight six. No regrets. Although my next project might well be putting that SBC into a 1978 280z.

My first time posting actual pictures which if it works all thanks to BRAAP especially the resize tip. These are 1972 three screw SU's on a refreshed 260z short block with an MN47 cylinder head, the N36 intake from the 260. The regulator is a Mallory return style with the return going through the old existing incoming hard line. Fuel pump is a Mallory 140 (not shown).

I finally tore into my stock early production 260z engine and in searching for specs I ran across this old post of mine (how did a year go by so fast??). My L26 has flat top pistons, and a piston to deck clearance of -0.001 inch, so the pistons just slightly pop out of the block. I will be putting an MN 47 head on it with 42cc chambers, and a 1mm gasket, and I roughly calculate the compression ratio will be 10.1:1. Dave

Great thread. Here is another DIY A/F meter link: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_0217/article.html?popularArticle David

Here is a freebie in Monroe WA, although it is a 280 shell. http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/zip/574066325.html David

The audiophile world is rife with subjective claims and evaluations. My favorite audiophile product along those lines is the Shakti Stone, a $199 rock (but it is a really really nice rock, polished and everything). http://www.shakti-innovations.com/ is their website. The claim is that it reduces EMI. Note that they have an automotive application for their rocks, complete with dyno results. David

Keep in mind that as the cam's duration increases, the general effect is to move the peaks up the power band. The longer duration cams will produce more horsepower, but at a higher rpm, and usually at the sacrifice of less lower rpm torque. On a street motor, torque is where its at, since you live in the 2-5k rpm range most of time. If you are on the track and keeping it at high rpm's, then you won't notice losing the lower rpm torque. On a street motor, the loss of the lower rpm torque with the hotter cam will make the milder cam seem more powerful. Another thing to check is the duration at .050. The higher that number is in relation to the advertised duration, the faster the valve is opening and the more power it will generate. Dave

I have been trying to figure out the compression ratio for various head chamber sizes on an L26 that I have in a parts car. I found a nice calculator at http://www.diamondracing.net/cocalc.htm and I had a hard time rounding up the data - in fact I never did find the Top Ring Down # which I used as a plug to solve for 8.8CR and I had to guess at the piston to deck clearance. I also guessed at the Head Gasket Bore diameter. Maybe someone can correct those figures, but I hope they are at least close. I haven't taken the engine apart yet. What it shows is that there is a .15 gain in compression for every one cc smaller size chamber. So going from a 47.7 cc chamber on the E88 head to, say, a 40cc chamber after unshrouding on a Maxima N47 head would give you 10.08CR. Pump gas on that should be doable. # of Cylinders - 6 Bore - 3.27 in. Stroke - 3.11 Rod Length- 5.08 Gasket Bore - 3.37 Comp. Gasket - .039 Block Deck Height - 8.18 Top Ring Down - .02 Chamber Volume cc - 40 Dome/Dish Volume - 0 Piston to Deck - 0.10 Dave

BelgianZ -- You might consider buying an engine/trans combination from a salvage yard. Take a look at http://www.fparts.us for example. As I recall, you can get a late model LS1/T56 combo for around $5k and even with shipping that should be within your budget. Unless you just want to go old school (iron block and carb), the LS1/T56 combo is very hard to beat. Dave

I ran across this on the NovaResource.com site. I love the belt-sander to modify the pistons for valve clearance. Sort of gives new meaning to a budget build up. Can't imagine it would hold up for more than a few runs. Here's the description: "Andrew Nelson and Sean DeVine of Fly With Junk Racing built this 1977 Nova for under $2000 to compete in a budget racing series. I first saw this car in How Rod where they discussing the competition. This Nova was the quickest in the quarter mile doing it all naturally aspriated. Sean said the engine is a flee market refugee. Cylinders 7 & 8 were rusted and needed to be sanded in order to clean. The cam required 45 minutes of sanding. There are .060" over TRW flat top pistons and a dirt-track cam that measures .612" lift. The valve reliefs were clearanced with a belt sander. Everything is well worn with .015" end play and .005-6 piston clearance. While cylinders 7 & 8 cleaned up after rust removed, 3, 4 & 6 had scoring. The intake is box stock Edelbrock Victor Jr. with no porting and an 850 Holley on top. Headers are 1-7/8" x 32" with a home fabricated collector. Two 3" secondary pipes to a single 4" exhaust. Muffler fabbed from 5" tractor trailer stack found on the road. The Canfield heads have a shifted intake port and no port work done. The Intake port is 195 cc and flow 259" at 28". The unknown convertor stalls about 2,800 on line with foot brake. They removed 1,162 pounds of the car to achieve a race weight of 2,727 pounds with driver and gas. Sean says the thing sounds like it turning a bazzillion rpm's because of the single exhaust. Shifts 1-2 at 6,700 and 2-3 at 6,900. Through traps at 6,800 with 4.11 gear & 28.5" tire. The car ran 10.48 on posted timeslip with 87 octane and no NOS." Not sure if I believe it, but here's the link - its about half way down the page. They have a picture of the engine too. http://www.novaresource.org/g77.htm Dave

I have been following this thread because I am in the process of trying to figure out what tranny to go with in my SBC swap - it's the last big item I need to buy before actually doing the swap. I keep flip-flopping between manual and automatic, but right now I am set on a T5 or TKO 5 speed. I too will have an hydraulic clutch set up, and am I right that you are saying that it is better to use an hydraulic bearing because of fitment problems with the clutch fork or slave cylinder? What does the use of an hydraulic bearing eliminate in solving the fitment problem? Sorry for the dumb questions - I have no experience with installing manual transmissions and it seems to be a bit of a black box to me. Dave

No surprise it's a repo. Dave

You might look at a first generation Subaru Impreza, particularly a bottom of the line model. The 5 speed is pretty bullet proof in those, and though they are somewhat gutless with a 1.8L four, they are super light weight. The good news is that all the Impreza platforms, including the WRX, are basically the same, like legos. So much of the aftermarket performance suspension and brake stuff for the WRX will fit without modification. Engine swaps are super easy, assuming you can figure out the wiring. A 2.0L turbo in a light early Impreza would scoot. Plus it will be very insurance friendly and super reliable,as long as you don't overboost it. There are some good Subaru forums, including NASIOC and the Utimate Subaru Message Board, where you can read up on what others have done in the way of mods. Dave

Pontiac motors are completely different from the SBC, and the heads are not interchangable. The Pontiac 350 - 455 engines all use the same big block design and outside dimensions. A good Pontiac website is Wallace Racing. Go to http://www.wallaceracing.com Dave

Sounds like you are doing things carefully and with good professional advice. Running a small business is not easy, and many of them fail just for lack of experience in what to anticipate and plan for. The money you are spending for those experienced CPA's, who specialize in small businesses, is a wise investment. Thay have seen the inside of hundreds of businesses. They know where the "gotcha's" are and can help you avoid mistakes. Hooking you up with the financing source to bridge payroll is an excellent example of the kind of knowledge advantages they bring to you that may seem like a small thing, but those small things can mean the difference between success and failure, or between sleeping at night and lying awake thinking uh-oh. Glad you're having fun and hope that 2006 rocks! Dave

Phillip Howard has written two thoughtful books on the problems of lack of accountability in our society and the high cost of litigation: Death of Common Sense : How Law is Suffocating America The Collapse of the Common Good : How America's Lawsuit Culture Undermines Our Freedom Both are well written, and should be required reading for every legislator, federal and state. They are in print and I highly recommend them. Dave

Of course, it is always difficult to tell from a news story, but if you read it carefully, it appears that the driver woke up before the crash and was attempting to regain control of the vehicle. The plaintiff's attorneys must have argued that but for the handling problems, which Ford apprently knew about, the driver could have regained control. No doubt, the driver was negligent for falling asleep, but the driver's negligence does not, and perhaps should not, absolve Ford of its negligence. My question is, is Ford negligent for designing and building a vehicle that is prone to rollover? Or is their negligence for not warning the consumer that the Explorer's design made it prone to rollover? And prone to rollover compared to what? - a Z car? It seems evident that the Explorer has very limited ability to manuveur safely in an emergency situation. Is this obvious? What could Ford have said in its warning? "WARNING - this vehicle handles like crap, and it will roll like an alligator chomping a pig if you even twitch the wheel". What if there was an easy fix to make it less prone to rollover, and Ford didn't adopt the fix? Is that negligence? Dave

There was a write up about these guys awhile back in Car & Driver. They road tested a mini built for a customer with a 220hp Type R VTEC, and it was almost uncontrollably fast. The car weighs less than 1800lbs. Here's the link to the article online http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=26&article_id=9029&page_number=1 Dave

I saw this article linked on yahoo. Here's a quotation from the article: "In general, we only included factory-assembled vehicles of which multiple copies exist on the list. Special prototypes were not what we had in mind. We also would not consider a one-off hot rod that some guy builds in his garage, as appropriate for the list. But, if you can build a car in your garage that goes 202 mph, please call Forbes.com at (212) 366-8900 because we have questions for you." Hmmm. Maybe some of the twin turbo SBC HybridZ folks should introduce themselves. Dave P.S. Here's the link to the article. http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/fastestcars_1.html

I am fond of Subarus, but there are probably more of them up here in the NW than in TX. They are super reliable and very easy to work on. The engine is a boxer style 4 cylinder, all aluminum, with hardened sleeves that just don't wear out, even after 250,000 plus miles. Usually what kills these motors is a blown head gasket. I am adopting a Forester as my daily driver (I am hotrodding it first, of course). I like the practicality of a small SUV body. One great thing about Subarus is that they are like legos, all the drivetrain and suspension parts are interchangable among models. Probably the best engine for reliability is the 2.2 liter which comes in most of the mid 90's Legacy's and Imprezas. Stay away from the DOHC 2.5 liter, it is prone to head gasket failure. The SOHC 2.5 liter, which comes in the 99 and later Forester, is ok. You should be able to get a mid to late 90's Legacy sedan with all the options and stay within your budget. And if you feel the need for more speed, swapping in a WRX turbo drivetrain is not that big a deal. Plus many of the suspension parts from the sport models - struts, brakes, etc - bolt right in. Dave

When I visited the Mac & Jack's brewery in Redmond, I was amazed to learn that African Amber is dry hopped. This is normally done by adding dried hops at the very end of the brewing prcess and it gives the beer a real bitter hop slam that can be refreshing on a hot day but is kind of an acquired taste. What M&J do differently is to suspend the hops in a tea bag in a 5 gallon keg and let it age for a couple of weeks. That mellows the hops and gives the beer its great floral aroma and aftertaste. If you are in the Seattle area, and you like beer, you gotta try African Amber. It is only available in kegs, no bottles. Fortunately, most taverns and restaurants have it. They also make a kick *** porter, but it is harder to find. Dave

I think this is the link he was referring to. http://www.tvmadeez.com/ I am close to being ready to order a 2004R from them and looks like I'll be getting the TV kit as well. If you get it, let us know how well it works. Dave

This http://album.hybridz.org/showphoto.php?photo=3304&cat=500&page=1 plus this http://album.hybridz.org/showphoto.php?photo=3303&cat=500&page=1 equals this http://album.hybridz.org/showphoto.php?photo=3306&cat=500&page=1 This is my idea of an Suv, with emphasis on the S. Should be pretty quick, as the STI engine is rated at 300hp/300tq. Everything so far has been bolt on - the engine, 6 speed, and drivetrain all the way to the brakes and wheels went right in no problem. Still have to do the wiring and interior. Dave