TimZ

Not sure how they got the $3.71 number - this appears to be assuming a ~42% energy/mileage deficiency. If you use the 25.56% number quoted in the text the equivalent price is more like $3.29. That's considerably cheaper than what 93 octane goes for, and if you look at what 109 octane leaded Turbo Blue is selling for here (~6.59/gal) this looks a LOT more attractive. I agree with Tony that this is more of a problem for the carb'ed crowd, since you'd possibly need to recalibrate the carb. As I said before, I'd prefer to see them put more effort into proliferating E85 rather than upping the mix on "regular" gas. E85 is a more deliberate choice and would give better choices for the consumer. My biggest problem with the SEMA notice was that it vilified ethanol in general and made some pretty stretchy claims about the negative effects that were more applicable to running E85 in a gas calibrated engine rather than E15, which would not be very smart. There is a lot of misinformation out there and this wan't helpful, IMHO. Also, talking purely about the energy content per volume doesn't tell the whole story. While you get less energy per volume, max power rich is also richer than what is productive for gas. So, you can generally expect ~5% more power from a properly tuned engine on E85 from the fuel alone, before adding any boost or compression allowed by the higher octane number. You'll also find that EGTs run about 200 degF cooler for an equivalent tune on E85. It's interesting that the thing that gets talked about most is the mileage decrease, even on sites like this one where performance is the main objective, and nobody even blinks at engine swaps that more than double the displacement, or running more than triple the stock boost levels.

I guess I was under the impression that those who were talking about installing a 220amp alt had some need for an alt that big. If you can't draw more current than the stock alt can handle, then there's really no need for anything bigger than a 70 amp alt. In the case above, where are the additional circuits wired to? From the description it sounds like just the battery. If you have constant-current draw high amperage accesories then you need heavy gauge wiring to both the alt and the battery, as the battery only supplies high current for transient loads - the alt will supply the constant current draw.

LOL

...So what's this glyptal stuff again Tony? Couldn't resist

Agreed - there's really not that much extra work involved with the additional two wires, and they offer definite advantages for voltage regulation. The only advantage of the one-wire setup is very slightly less work, especially if you've already got the 3 wires in your harness. It should also be pointed out that the stock harness is not even close to adequate for a 140-amp alternator, and would most likely start on fire (not an exaggeration) if you tried to run 220 amps through it. You can use high output alts, but you need to make sure you have significantly upped the gauge of any wire path that will likely carry the increased current.

I've found this practice to work well - as others have said retard the timing as boost comes up, but then you can add a degree or two per 1k rpm from the torque peak to redline. Start with something conservative ans see how it works for you. Here's pretty much what mine looks like - ignore the hp and torque numbers, this was taken from a third gear on-road pull, and is not an "official" dyno number...

I got the cool white, because it had the highest output lumens. The warm white might be a bit more natural looking, but I'm pretty happy with what I got.

Just bought one of these for about $11 shipped... http://www.superbrightleds.com/cgi-bin/store/index.cgi?action=DispPage&Page2Disp=/specs/festoonhp_3022-xHP4.htm WAY brighter than the old incandescent that it replaced, draws less current, runs cooler and is a direct replacement. My dome light actually works for the first time in about 20 years!

Ya I know - that whole thing was a pretty frustrating experience. I will say that since I went through and had expansion joints added in the long tubes, it's actually not given me any further problems. Here's pretty much what it looks like today...

If it's really a Garrett GT-series then it would be the next size larger than the GT42, which is really huge - the GT42 can be good for over 1000hp in some applications. If this is the case, then Tony is right - not only would that turbo be too big, it would work really poorly at flow levels that low. You'd almost certainly make more usable power with the stock turbo. If it's some other turbo masquerading as a GT-series, I think I'd avoid it on principle alone. If they'll deliberately misrepresent themselves that way, what else are they not telling you? Here's what a GT42 looks like on an L-series...

Is this intended to be a hot street car or a track car? I'm guessing the former if you are considering stretching narrower tires to fit. If this is the case, consider the Mickey Thompson ET street radials. Unbelievable straight line traction, and the handling isn't as bad as you might think - definitely as good or better than a stretched tire. Of course this is only a solution for the rear, but they do have several 15" sizes.

You've proven that conclusively. ...Now back to our original programming.

I should have just taken Tony's position. I'll just say this - from the context of the posts up until mine, it's really clear that everybody (including you, Jon) was talking about the symmetry of the valve opening/closing rates, and assuming that you could tell this by looking at the lobe shape and whether its symmetrical or not. You can't. Not on an L-series cam. Many other engines do have valvetrain geometry that results in the shape of the lobe being analogous to the valve opening/closing profile, which is most likely why the links posted above made this generalization. Regardless, trying to help CarolinaTZ ID his cam by telling him it's "asymmetrical" by your definition is pointless. I defy you to find an L-series cam that doesn't have asymmetrical lobes. There are, however, L-series cams that have symmetrical valve opening/closing profiles and those that have asymmetrical valve opening/closing profiles, and that's what everybody in this thread was referring to.

This position just doesn't make sense - you are saying that it only matters what the cam lobe looks like, not how it effects the opening and closing of the valves. If you can't tell anything about the performance of the cam by talking about its "symmetry" then there is no point in talking about it at all. You might as well be talking about what font was used to stamp the cam code onto it. You missed the salient point in the Delta Cams definition - "Usually, the contour on both sides of the lobe is the same (the contour, or profile, controls the acceleration of the valve)" ...it's the shape of the lobe that results in a given acceleration at the valve that they are referring to, not just the shape of the lobe, devoid of any other information. The "profile" as stated refers to the motion at the valve, not just the visual characteristics of the lobe. So, if the shape of the lobe results in the same valve motion on the opening and closing sides, then it is symmetrical. No other definition is worth talking about.

Okay - WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH TONY??? ...I knew I wasn't telling you anything new - just wanted to throw it out there

You may still be correct, Tony. As you know, you can't tell if a grind is asymmetric or not just by looking at the lobe - you have to map the actual lift that occurs at the valve vs engine rotation. Because of the way the geometry changes as the lobe wipes over the rocker, the lobe for our engines ends up looking asymmetric just to keep the actual lift profile symmetrical. My current cam lobes look for all the world to be asymmetric, but here's a plot of the opening/closing rates at overlap - the ramp rates are pretty much identical. When I mapped the whole thing I was really surprised at how symmetrical the intake and exhaust lobes were - not what I expected to find!

Something like this, maybe?

This won't answer your question about allowable piston to valve clearance, but I can't help but notice that you are running a lot of lift. You do realize that stock valvetrain hardware won't work with that much lift, right? Have you taken the necessary steps to make sure that your springs won't bind, and the retainer won't hit the stem seal?

I might have been had somebody else said it. Always consider the source - Tony's and Ron's reputation are what they are for good reason, not just because they post a lot. I wasn't worried that they were talking about me - I know them better than that by now. Btw - they are right, it would be easy to fake. At some point you have to figure out whether you believe the source or not, which is what Tony was getting at.

Well, it does say "in Hga" for the units - the "a" usually means "absolute", but "boost" usually means "relative to atmospheric", so it's hard to say. It's either 51psi or ~36psi, depending on what they meant by that. Nothing to sneeze at either way. BTW, I don't have a blog, self-aggrandizing or other...

I've only had one Z - bought it in July 1980 and still have it.

There's a fair amount of room for porting - here's mine: I did have to weld some material back in at the point where the relief is for the thermostat housing.

[deleted] On the question of whether it runs hotter, Jon's answer is what they are getting at. If left uncompensated (as would happen in a carbureted engine) the E15 will run about 3% leaner than E10, or about 6% leaner than pure gasoline. I'm having trouble believing that this is going to cause a catastrophic increase in temps unless you were on the ragged edge to begin with, especially considering that ethanol burns cooler to begin with. All this aside, I'm not that thrilled about the potential switch to E15 - I'd rather they leave E10 alone and do more to proliferate E85. If E85 could just reach critical mass then we could all have a real choice. I mostly found it disappointing that SEMA would perpetuate the confusion, half truths and internet legends out there, especially when they do have members that sell products for E85 too.

Trippedd over this in an unrelated search (scroll to almost the bottom): http://www.kinsler.com/page--Garage-Sale--29.html Anybody seen this one before? Kind of interesting injector placement, but it takes a pretty sharp bend at the ports.

I can't tell either - those were pretty fast pulls, so either it's lots of power or the car is in a lower gear, or the inertia of the drum on this rig is lower than I am used to seeing. Still it didn't sound like it pulled all the way to redline, unless redline is below say 7000rpm, which doesn't bode well for max power. Too many unknowns. Also, it's possible that it could have put some spikes in the plot when it started breaking up...