Gollum

I'm not sure how ontipic this will keep us... sorry. But I've heard from guys who run sub 11s in DSMs that the DSM drivetrain is much stronger than people guess, they just don't stand for beaing beat on, and since most the owners of these cars can't drive for anything, they break often. Granted I personally wouldn't trust one with power levels over 500hp, it might handle more than most people give it credit for. Oh yea: I love the durocco. Perfect example of a modern hot rodder imo.

Has anyone looked into the prosche AWD systems, they're rear engine based obviously. Might not make any more sense in a Z than putting the engine in front of the front wheel centerline, but hey, it's on the table now. I'm with jon though. If I were to do a AWD Z it'd be two seperate motors. I'd probably look for a light 4 banger that I could get to around 250NA hp or so. (not many I know, unless we're talking about super high CR on high octane). I've also considered how cool it would be to do that very thing, but run the rear engine at 20-40% more power, to offset the understeer the front engine would create on corner exit. Fitting a transverse motor in the front of a Z would be interesting though.

Must.... have.... more..... pics....

Good god those wheels/tires ruin it for me. Camber Fit All of it. I do have some questions though. Does anyone know the production figures for slick tops in japan from 82-83? Why? Notice it has the later hood, tail lights, bumpers, etc. But it's a slick top. From what I've seen slick tops in the later years are nearly impossible to find over here. And why would someone go through all that effort, swapping half the body over from a later Z, and then put a front air dam on and then leave the rest of the body OEM??? My only conclusion is that it's actually a later S130 clicktop, something impossible to find over here. And it's been lightly modified, carb'ed, seats, air dam, tach, wheels, lowered. I never thought I'd say this. But after seeing 80LT1's rims.... 18 inchers that fit would look better than that.

+1 On the junkyard wheels. I see the S130 rims all the time at the yards. Very light rims, and you won't beat the price.

I think he's gonna need more guidance than that. Put the DVD in your computer, and open the DVD up. If it always wants to lauch into a DVD playing program, then try right clicking the DVD drive and clicking "explore". Check the file types. Right clicking and going to proprties normally gets you the file info, if the .avi .mpg or other format isn't listed on the file just exploring in windows (it's a view option you can changed in your folder settings, don't worry about all that). Once you know what file type you're dealing with we'll better know how to help you. If it's truly in a DVD format, then you'll need to rip the DVD, then convert the files to a format that youtube will accept. If it's in AVI or a similar format, then you just need to copy the files onto your computer, then upload the files to youtube.

I've really been meaning to buy that book. Honest. I'm just still completely drawn to this book any time I get the chance. http://www.amazon.com/Modify-Management-Systems-Motorbooks-Workshop/dp/0760315825 I'll have read that book cover to cover several times before feeling confident in what I've learned from it.

Why are you talking about cars, like the subie and the Z? My question is physics related, and physics alone. Tell me, how on earth does moving weight backwards remove traction up front. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I won't believe you until there's some equation with theory to back it up.

Can I ask a simple physics question here? Because lifting weight off the front being bad still isn't making sense to me. Usuaully when people ADD weight to the front they get more understeer. Which makes sense when you consider: Weight is a race cars #1 enemy. The more weight you have the more mass you need to move around a track. There are cars out there with very little weight on the front tires at all, like the lotus elise, and it has much smaller tires in front than in rear, suggesting it doesn't need AS MUCH contact patch to move that front end around. I'm not saying you're wrong six shooter, I'm just saying that the way what you're saying comes across flys in the face of everything I've ever read, seen, even experienced.

My only conclusion is that 22 inches MUST have been a typo. That spec wasn't mentioned multiple times, so I guess just a typo would be possible. I'd assume me meant 32 inches. Not 22. There's just no way you could get that size package with a near square design. It'd have to have a MUCH shorter stroke.

Might be true too!!!! Crazy.. I never would have guessed. Look at how much gap there is in this engine bay with the 6 cylinder in there. http://www.xxtuning.com/xxgallery/details.php?image_id=772 http://www.xxtuning.com/xxgallery/details.php?image_id=775 I'm still baffled over here, so if someone has dimensions to prove me wrong, please. EDIT: In my limited research I've found that the newer EZ series is much shorter than the EQ, and quite a bit lighter too. It' has COP and I can't seem to find any specs on how wide. People just say "similar to the 4 cylinder" variants. Blaa Second Edit: Take from this site: http://linaracing.com/impreza-h6-conversion-faq.php What are the exact dimensions of the engine? I have measured these, and won't have any others for a very long time. (till the engine comes out... maybe next year) Across front: 32.25" Across body: 29.75" Across tranny attachment: 14.75 Between motor mounts: 14" Front to rear: 18" Height, sump to intake: 25.5"

Whoa, check this out. http://www.canardzone.com/members/PhillipJohnson/Engine/subaru_eg33.htm He states the widest point is 22 inches... that's quite a bit smaller than I could have imagined. Are the 6 cylinders smaller?!

I don't think it'd be the best solution, but I know guys in STIs and EVOs convert to RWD using the stock AWD tranny. Not sure how, but I know they do. But I don't think that's a very good soluton. You'd be carrying extra weight in the tranny, and i'm sure it's not as compact as a RWD tranny. But that does seem to be the big hold up, aside from needing to totally hack up the front end and install some tubing.

Somehow I KNEW you were gonna bring up that weight braap... ...sure does make one want to put one in a Z. Even the flat 6 would offer a very low weight, and a low CG if you can figure out how to fit it. Did you have the flywheel and/or exhaust manifolds when you weighed this? Any guess how much they'd add? I'd say.... 30-40 pounds together?

I can't imagine any easy way to fit the S30 bumpers on the S130. The S130 is huge by comparison. It's quite a bit wider, so the bumpers would have to be widened in order to fit right. I've never physically taken a S30 bumper up to any of my S130 cars though.

No, he meant Z32. Dan was talking about the pic a few posts up about the S30 with Z32 lights. Then someone said "because they're from a Z32. Then I laughed, because here's dan's car http://album.hybridz.org/showphoto.php?photo=13628&si=dan%20juday Make sense to everyone now? BTW.... I think dan's car is the nices HZ car I've seen in person... ....shhhh, don't tell cozyzcole...

HAHAHA, my laugh of the day. Thanks. No offense at all, it was just funny, but go find some pics of Dan's car. He has Z32 lights as well...

Tube80Z's tube framed car is at 1620 with a 5.0 V8 and a T5. That 2780 on your car you looked at was a 73' that's heavier than an earlier 240Z to begin with. And that's not just two passangers. That's also with cargo. I was just looking it up, and it looks like the conservative curb weight for an early 240Z would be around 2350. Still no way it's even close to 2500 though. Your weights about the 260Z and 280Z are accurate though. Those cars are ungodly heavy for being the same profile as a 240Z. EDIT: Heres some links. These are the most official specs i've seen on the 240Z on the net. http://www.zshop.net.au/240tech.htm Here's some weights of Zs as they were tested back in the day by magazines. Large variations as one should expect. http://zhome.com/History/zcarperf.html

Hmm, I kinda want to look up who WAS winning the SCCA championships when the S13 and Z32 were out. My gut wants to say that there was a lot more competition for those cars than there was for the S30. But at any rate, the aero of the S30 has been a grossy exaggerated problem I think. Go read every post in the wind tunnel section and study the figures. You can get a S30 to aerodynamically compete with plenty of other cars with relatively very little money. You'll spend a lot less on aero than you will in other areas of the car, like the engine. At the end of the day weight is the number one enemy of a road racer. Between the S13 and the Z32 I'd pick the S13. The chassis is more light weight from my limited experience, and will thus give it an advantage.

I agree that this would be a bad idea in a 2500 pound car But most of the 240Z cars actually weight in closer to 2100 in stock form. There's a thread with weights posted. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=101797 Note tube80z's post. In GT-2 spec he's at 1850. That's with a 280Z motor. I'm sure he's also got a built to spec cage too. If I were to do this the goal would be on a very very stripped out 240Z with only a basic 6 point cage, as much lexan and fiberglass as possible, and I could probably get away with a R160, but definately wouldn't need to step up to the R200. I see no reason for the weight to be over 1900, especially when you consider the motors are still gonna be lighter than the Z motor, even with two in the engine bay.

the 25" might not be at the inside of the frame rails. Consider that. When I measured the S130 engine bay, majority of the shock towers were less than 25" of clearence, and the top was about 28". The inside of the frame rails were closer to 20" And you could mount the engine far enough back to no have issues with the suspention, but then you couldn't use the AWD.

I truly beg to differ about the torque issue. Trust me, I love torque, and I agree that in many cases a car without enough torque for the weight of the vehicle isn't fun. But HP IS TORQUE. Why people talk about wanting one more than another is nonsense. A high RPM motor is going to be a low torque motor, and a high torque motor is going to be a low reving motor. It's that simple. HP is RPM x Torque / 5252 HP is how much work will actually get done. Having lots of torque just means you'll get it done at lower RPM. What matters isn't how much torque you have, it's the TORQUE CURVE. The curve of the torque will give you an insight into the usible power range. A flat curve like a honda yeilds a very liniar power band that gives you a motor that makes more power as you rev it. As long as it gets air it's happy and will just keep on making more power since the torque just doesn't fall off. (until around 10k when the cam dies). A 440 mopar has a very high offset curve that starts huge, and drops off to next to nothing past 4k. This is great for towing, or if you want to do burnouts all day long. Or if you want to have 400hp on tap while cruising down the freeway. But these motors can actually tend to be more "peaky" than people generally think. The reason I say this is because once power starts to drop it DROPS. So you get a good strong bottom end, and it revs up, and then dies. While it's in it's happy RPM range it's great though. The answer to ANY torque/hp curve is gearing. You want to shift from the top of your curve to the bottom of your curve. The longer you can make that curve the better. Here's the dyno of the H1 V8, and since it has only 2.8 liters with a short stroke, it can't physically make huge torque, and relies on RPM to make it's power. Look at how beautiful that torque curve is. Don't look at the number, look at the curve. It bubles up perfectly and still allows the motor to maintain a liniar performance in the rest of the powerband making it a very VERY versatile motor. My friend chris here on this board (rudypoochris) did an article on this subject on his site. http://www.autolounge.net/tech/hptq.html Please read it and understand I agree, which means in most cases I'd say torque is very important. But it must all be taken in context and that it's about RPM range as well. You want to spend the most usible time in your RPM range as you can, and the bigger you can make it the better, regardless of torque numbers. ==================== And regarding the enginer management. It's been discussed in other threads, that it's better to use two independant systems than one giant system. This is how many V8 engines actually run, two totally seperate ignition systems, one running one bank, one running the other. There shouldn't be a problem running two systems on two engines. It's been done in the past with success.

My favorite part was when they did the slow motion shot of the subie covering the guy in snow, getting the rear bumper within a foot of the guy. Maybe less than 6 inches. Those guys car drive.

Funny, was just at my gf's birthday party last night. Happy brithday doc. Glad to see you have people around you who care. It helps methinks.

yea, 30 inches is roughly what I measured all the times I've measured the STI motor. Cramming that into the 25" Z bay would be tough. You'd have to tube frame the front end and completely remove the stock rails and strut towers. Then you might also need to modify the suspention to make sure it clears the engine. It might not be THAT bad, I'm just thinking worst case scenario.