TimZ

I have a pair of 280 Z seats I've been meaning to sell - just didn't think there would be much interest. They are in pretty reasonable shape - brown, though...

http://jalopnik.com/photogallery/athfcover/

A resistor would not work very well - the supply voltage would then be load dependent and I don't know if the GM MAP sensor's current draw is constant vs its output voltage. It probably isn't. Using another sensor's 5V supply would be a better bet, but you would want to at least check to make sure that you aren't pulling down the supply with the extra load. You probably won't, but you should check anyway. If that doesn't work, you can always roll your own 5V regulator with maybe $15 worth of parts from Radio Shack.

viton o-rings are $0.38 each on eBay, and E85 is considerably less corrosive than methanol. On the issue of power, you should see a noticeable increase in power from E85 over gasoline (don't know where C16 falls in this argument) - this quoted from http://www.e85forum.com: One other thing - e85 is a more oxygenated fuel, so it creates a greater volume of exhaust gas, and should spool your turbo(s) sooner.

I thought I'd been able to edit the title before, too. No big deal - I just noticed when I had typo'ed the title of a thread and couldn't fix it.

I assume you are referring to what is tunable in the MS software, right? If you don't compensate for IAT, it will have a measurable effect on your AFR.

Timing chain cover - yes. Head - no.

That is a nice museum - I took my family there about a year and a half ago.

I have a pretty strong suspicion... In 2nd and 3rd you still run through the gears pretty quickly, so there isn't time for the manifold air temps to rise significantly. You spend much more time in 4th and 5th under boost and the manifold air temps will almost certainly climb. The hotter air temps will result in a richer mix. Any ideas on your air temps?

Didn't we used to have the capability to edit more than just the last post in a thread, and fix typos in the titles of our own threads?

As I recall, either one should work just fine. The MTL will probably shift a little bit smoother than the MT-90, but the MT-90 will give better protection against shock loading, so it's more appropriate for applications with increased power.

As I recall it's more like .75 to 1 psi to "make up" the power loss from losing a point. In general, the amount of additional boost you can run with the lower CR more than makes up the difference. EDIT: Here is the relationship for thermal efficiency for the Otto cycle: thermal efficiency = 1 - 1/(CR^k-1) A typical value for an air/fuel mixture is k = 1.35. ...so for a CR = 8, the thermal efficiency would be ~0.517 ... at CR = 9, the thermal efficiency = ~0.537 This is an approximate 4% difference in efficiency

Squished - get it? heh, heh.

It has a Centerforce Clutch.

Well, it's not as sexy as Monzter's but here are a couple of pics of my combustion chambers... ....no squish in the head, but a pretty good match to the pistons above.

Damn that's nice work, Jeff. Love the modified plug angles. Regarding my N42, yes the head has had some work done to it, but mostly to the ports. The chamber has been smoothed a bit and ceramic coated, but not that much has been done to it. I'll get a pic of it and post in the next couple of days. I think that a great deal of the detonation resistance that I have is due to the fairly deep dish in the pistons, and the 7.5:1 CR that results from it... For whatever reason, I do make good power with this head, and I've repeatedly been able to run 26psi on 94 sunoco pump gas. I feared that maybe I just wasn't hearing it, but at the last teardown there was absolutely no evidence of detonation.

Pouring molten aluminum with a short sleeve shirt and no gloves... that is what I'm looking at there, right? :shock: Manifold looks great, btw!

I don't think that John needed help choosing a representative BFSC - he already knows what turbo he is using and how much power he is making. He's saying that the calculator doesn't give the correct results unless he puts in an unrealistically low number for BFSC. I'm seeing similar results, btw. The maps don't reflect my experience unless I use a BFSC of about 0.4. I know from experience that my engine is running in the neighborhood of 0.6 BFSC. The calculator is saying that I would need to run 47psi of boost to reach the numbers that I get at 26psi. EDIT: I am noticing that if I play with the intake temperature and volumetric efficiency numbers the results look more realistic, but I had to use a VE of 115% to get in the ballpark with BFSC=0.6. Maybe my cam is working better than I realized...

All good advice - I find that it is much easier to remove or install a rocker if you loosen the locknut on the lash adjuster and screw the adjuster down as far as it will go. Once you do that, only a very small amount of valve spring compression is generally needed to get the rocker on. Also, if you don't find anything obvious with the valvetrain, you might want to check to see if you've fouled a plug or two. EDIT: crap - didn't see that there was a second page of posts.

I bought my AZ Zcar Wilwood brake setup back in the late '80s - I was one of the first. Exact same problem. As others have mentioned, I ground material away from the LCA until it no longer interfered. Been running that way ever since with no issues. I do autocross the car, although infrequently. Do the bolts that fasten the rear disc to its hat still interfere with the caliper mounting bracket, too?

Which one are you talking about?

Maybe I'm missing something - assuming he checks ALL of the rocker wipe patterns and they come out the same, what's non-ideal about the .150" pattern shown?

All injector flow ratings (that I know of at least) are rated at 3 bar (43.5psi) of static pressure. You can run the injectors at lower pressure if you like, but they will flow correspondingly less. Flow varies with the square root of pressure, so at 36psi those injectors will flow ~650cc. Didn't I tell you they'd be ok?

It's a 60mm HKS GT wastegate