Gollum

And this is exactly why it's NOT a head horse. The two other engines mentioned, the GTR and the 997... The GTR pushes 11psi and spikes to about 14 in certain conditions. The 997 has a computer controller wastegate and at peak power is normally only around 12PSI (but will be higher in short gears where RPM's aren't held. The ECU lowers boost in a long 4th or 5th gear pull at peak HP, probably for protection) So really, why are we comparing these? I'll say it again. ALL ENGINES will produce MORE POWER in a LINEAR fashion per PSI. If you engine creates MORE horsepower than another at X PSI, it will produce similarly MORE at a raised boost level, if all things are equal (in other words if the engines stay identical from 10 psi to 20 psi and motor 2 has 20 more HP than motor 1 at 10 psi, then it will have 40 more HP than motor 1 at 20 psi), then the only variable is the turbo/force induction being used. I've seen Mitsubishi Evo's put down 500+hp TO THE WHEELS on PUMP GAS, on a STOCK LONGBLOCK. Stock cams, stock head, no porting, etc. That's over 600 at the crank with AW Drivetrain losses. And that means it's putting out about 300hp per liter! "A turbo will only flow what the engine allows so I can't see how more boost can overcome engine flow limitations to any significant degree." This is where you're understanding force induction all wrong. Diesel applications regularly run boost levels WELL over 50psi, on the same turbos that people are afraid to run 25 PSI with on the L28ET. In those diesel applications those turbos are running against much more restrictive heads, but of course usually much higher displacement. Let's inspect the map of the TURBO YOU HAVE, for educational purposes. Enlarge that and open it in a new window so you can reference it as you read. The center "island" of that map is where that compressor (the cold side of the turbo) is most efficient. This means that's the range at which the least amount of excess heat is generated (when you compress air it creates heat no matter what, but if a turbo were at "100% efficiency" it would be creating zero heat in and of itself, with the only heat being added being from the act of compression alone, required by physics). Notice that the TOP of that island is at/around 2.8 BAR, which is around 40PSI. This means that if your engine was ingesting about 55-58 lbs of air per minute while the turbo was at around 105000 RPM, then 40PSI (or so) would be created and the turbo would be very near it's peak efficiency. Sounds to me like this turbo could handle "more PSI" just fine, given it was on the right engine, flowing the right amount for it's efficiency range. The wonderful aspect of a turbo is that it works on thermodynamics as well as aerodynamics. This means that a turbo is a heat device as much as an air device. Let's make up an example real quick to illustrate. Our example engine will be 1 liter for simple calculations. At 1,000RPM ,if the engine were 100% volumetrically efficient it would be taking in about 17.65 cubic feet of air per minute, or CFM. BUT!!! We can't convert that to pounds a minute like on our compressor map unless we know the temperature the air is when it goes into the engine. This is because a cubic foot of air might weigh more or less. At lower temperatures air is dense, and heavier. At high temperatures the air expands and becomes lighter per volume. What happens inside of an engine??? Air gets HOT HOT HOT!!! The weight of the air coming out of the engine will be roughly the same as it was going in, but it will want a higher volume of space to occupy because it's now much hotter and thus has expanded. This creates pressure, which is a form of energy. So the air coming out of the air is larger than the air going in... get that? So we use this expanded air to push a turbine wheel, which is also connected to a compressor wheel. As air pushes the turbine the compressor wheel spins and we get an asymmetrical airflow system going on. This means that MORE AIR IS COMING INTO THE ENGINE THAN THERE WAS BEFORE. This is because we took the energy from the expanded air and transferred it into a rotational energy that's bringing in cooler air. If an engine spit out air at exactly the same temperature as it was going in, then a turbo would work on aerodynamics alone, and wouldn't work very well. Now, the next key to think about in all this, is that when your boost controller hits a target pressure at the intake manifold, excess air is diverted around the turbine in order to keep the RPM on the turbo from increasing, thus stabilizing the boost pressure. So if you're VG33ET is hitting a set boost level and actually maintaining it... guess what? You've got excess energy you're bleeding off (aka excess exhaust gasses). The only time I'd consider "the turbo only flowing what the engine can allow" would be in a setup with NO WASTEGATE!!!! Usually setups like this are seen only in drag racing where every piece of the system is perfectly matched and you tune and build it to keep it from blowing up as long as possible, and otherwise you want AS MUCH horsepower as possible out of it. Now, that VG30ET that electromive built was running over 50psi, but let's see if we can figure out at least the window of volumetric efficiency it had at peak torque, so we can guess how well those heads were ACTUALLY flowing... I don't know what fuel they were running, but assuming they were still making power at a very rich 12:1, and assuming a BSFC of around .50 then: at 107% volumetric efficiency at 5,500 RPM to create 800 hp as shown the intake air would be around 145 degrees F at 97% volumetric efficiency at 5,500 RPM to create 800 hp as shown the intake air would be around 90 degrees F. Of those two examples I'd guess actual inlet temps would be around 120-130, which puts volumetric efficiency around 104% Those might sound high, but you'd be amazed how many engines reach 100 or near 100% efficiency on not too radical of setups. It's more about what RPM they reached it at and such that starts to become impressive. Let's compare peak HP (instead of torque) percentages since we see torque is dramatically falling off. at 100% volumetric efficiency at 7,400 RPM to create 965 hp as shown the intake air would be 140 degrees F at 91% volumetric efficiency at 7,400 RPM to create 965 hp as show the intake air would be 90 degrees F keep in mind that part of the torque fall off on the graph is due to boost pressure fading down slightly, which I've accounted for So either way, it looks like they've lost AT LEAST 7% volumetric efficiency from peak torque to peak HP. That 7% might not sound like much, but many of the efficient DOHC heads are making about a 5% or less window for most of their upper RPM range, which is what gives you a FLAT torque curve, like this: I'm not going to take the time to calculate it out, but seeing as it's a 1.6 liter making about 105 lbs of torque at the wheels it's around a 90% volumetrically efficient engine. And keep in mind that my, very lightly modified engine of that same B16 honda pictured above put over 175 HP to the wheels... with a similarly flat torque curve. I'm sure my B18 was damn close to 100% volumetrically efficient at peak torque, if not actually over. And that's on pump gas, with stock cams, on a stock head. Much more power can be had if I really wanted it, but I wasn't going to spend that deeply. So again, it sounds to me like you have a LOT more power potential, but you need to be willing to raise the boost and find out why it's not making the extra horsepower. Find out the REAL reason inlet temps are going up in an proportional way. If you saw a 2-3 degree increase in temps per PSI change, but then all of the sudden say a 5-6 degree increase, there's a reason. Find that reason, and you'll find more horsepower. Obviously MANY others have overcome the quest for power on the ET heads, and it sounds like you've got the right motor to do it, just need the time and patience to find out what's going on. I'll say it one more time... ...heat in the inlet temps in a force induced engine does not originate from the head flow itself. BTW, i'm going through all this with you because I care enough about you and others that spend a huge amount of money on an engine build and don't necessarily get what you can out of it, for lack of understanding. I'm not saying your engine builder doesn't know anything. I'm saying he's not taking the time to EDUCATE YOU, the CLIENT in order for you to truly UNDERSTAND what's going on. You paid him to build an engine, not teach a seminar. But without that vital education then much of the build is just lost.

Wow... quite the week ahead of you. And I feel overloaded trying to get a dang head on an otherwise running car...

Power will ALWAYS increase in a linear fashion per PSI on ANY engine. The variable that keeps that absolute from ACTUALLY happening is HEAT. You even just noted that you guys raised the boost, and the inlet temps went up and power was rolling off... ...that turbo should have room left to grow on that setup. I almost wonder if something was wrong. Maybe something was throwing the tune off, like maybe the timing the ECU was showing was off from reality? Maybe you're getting weak spark at those HP levels? I'd sooner blame the details then the turbo or heads at that point... And the fact it is the GTX3582R, you made about 400-420 CRANK HP at 15PSI, which means you're not way out of efficiency with that turbo, and it should take to 3 bar just fine. You'll be building boost out of efficiency, but MAX HP should definitely be nearing happy territory for that compressor, which means more PSI shouldn't create THAT much more heat. If that motor is still together in the exact state it was dyno'ed I'd do a pressure test on the whole system and then go down the checklist to make sure every system was working as it should. Verify EVERYTHING. At the end of the day, you made 400+ crank HP at 15psi, which means it's well capable of making 200+ crank HP without the turbo, possibly around 225 by my guess (if you had NA cams, a NA tune, etc). That's put around 190 to the wheels and you simply don't see many VG3XE's out there doing that. Hell, I've seen L28ET's make less than that at 10PSI... So whoever has done your engine work, certainly hasn't done anything wrong when it comes to getting the heads to flow. They're not lazy heads, that's for sure. And some food for thought, even the 965HP VG30ET that Electromotive built still had it's torque peak at 5,500 RPM... Notice how once the boost hits it's final/top level that the boost reaches it's peak and slowly falls off all the way to redline. The fact it falls off so slowly is quite amazing, but it's still showing the serious lack of top end flow ability the SOHC motors were limited to. Meanwhile it seems like there's a plethora of backyard tuning shops that have reached similar numbers on the DETT motors...

Ah, so now we have a turbo we can look into, thanks. The GTX3585R (not the 82R eh?), if my assumption is right, based off of Garrett nomenclature, that's a 54 trim versus the 56 trim they have specs for on their site (GTX3582R). If that's the case, then that turbo should just be STARTING to come alive at 400-425 crank HP, and be able to flow a good 650-700 crank HP worth of air. But the crux, it's efficiency map (based off of the very similar 82R), means it'll happily make 400HP at around 13psi, but in order to push 600HP it wants to be up around 40 PSI... Basically, at your PSI level desires, this turbo might be a tad small. The reason the DET is making so much more HP is due to a couple of factors (by my best guess, based off of quite a bit of turbo swapping and seeing various turbos in radically different situations) 1. The DET is probably making peak power closer to 6500 or beyond, not the 5500 of the ET. That alone is worth a 77hp difference if the torque of both engines was 400lbs at HP peak. 2. The ET just barely makes it into the usable range of this turbo, and turning up the boost just pushes you further away, as the heads just aren't allowing enough flow/pressure ratio. --a. This is an indication of how well the heads flow. If all other factors are equal, like the intake, exhaust, turbo etc are all equal, then the only other factor is the heads --b. The easiest way to overcome this is to either improve the heads, or change the parameters, which might require other subsequent changes. -----Some Examples: -----1.Run fuel that allows more torque per RPM, like race gas or E85. Odds are you're timing limited and getting around that limitation will get you into the BSFC you need to reach -----2.Cool the intake air more, maybe using water injection or an air/water intercooler As some food for thought, let's consider the turbos that people that ARE getting 400+ HP from the ET, and compare their size and pressure levels to achieve that level of HP. Note: Your turbo by my calculation is a 54 trim compressor, which is one of the most consistent measurements in knowing the overall size of the compressor. A lower trim can certainly outflow a higher trim, and I'm not going to get into nitty gritty details, as all the info is out there for those curious to research. 1. Rick Hausman 439 WHP @ 5500 Turbo: T64e Inducer: 66mm PSI: Unknown 2.Michael Bresette 394 WHP Turbo: GT3582R Inducer: 61.4mm PSI: Unknown (but I bet it's HIGH considering it's even smaller than your turbo and has a tiny map by comparison) 3. Rick Hernandez 423 WHP Turbo: T4/T04e 60-1 Trim Inducer: Unknown, could be anything, but the thing is still a pretty good trim, so it can flow some air PSI: 23 (403hp at 20psi) 4. Kyle Ellis 399.5 WHP @ 5,000rpm Turbo: T3/T4 57 Trim Inducer: Unknown PSI: Unknown 5. Steve Sebes 440 WHP Turbo: T3/TO4R Inducer: 66.5mm PSI: Unknown 6. Jason Butts 453 WHP Turbo: T3/TO4S 60-1 Trim Inducer: Unknown, but can see the build of it on his site PSI: 21 7. Ken Hogg 450 WHP @ 6,000 Turbo: T3/TO4e 60 trim Inducer: Unknown PSI: Unknown 8. 1sickZ 530 WHP @ 5,800 (this is the torque curve you're wanting I bet, best high RPM torque I've seen on a ET motor that's not a professional race car like the IMSA engine) http://www.redz31.net/turbofaq/dynographs/1Sickzdyno.jpg Turbo: T4 Inducer: Unknown PSI 24 9. BLOZ UP 390 WHP @ 5,000-5,200 Turbo: T3/TO4e 57 trim Inducer: Unknown, but ask him, he's in your thread... PSI: 18 So that's 9 examples of people past, near, or right at where you want to be. Some things that stand out: 1. Most are running HIGHER trim turbos, but they're older turbos, and many times running in a hybrid setup on a T3 turbine. Your "smaller" turbo should keep up with most of these just fine. 2. Of the ones we have PSI levels for, they're all significantly higher than 15 lbs. 3. The ones we have graphs for usually show a similar HP peak and torque curve to yours. The most important conclusion I think this should bring you to, is that there's power left in your turbo, but it's going to require more boost on your current heads. The other part of the conclusion is that whoever said that there's no point in going past 15psi is either full of bull crap, or he was referencing another limitation that hasn't been presented, like maybe a fuel requirement, lack of injector size, or maybe something else.

Should really get those plated...

And just because I'm a nice guy, I did a little digging and found some cars that I'd be interested in, if I was in the market for a budget project. Now, none of these might have the sex appeal of the S30 with a mad JDM yo! swap done, but they're contenders in may ways in their own right. I even searched Virginia's clist in case you actually wanted to call these people... http://norfolk.craigslist.org/cto/3953791613.html http://richmond.craigslist.org/cto/3981634894.html http://norfolk.craigslist.org/cto/4004986505.html http://smd.craigslist.org/cto/3975063214.html and for some food for thought, probably one of the most viral articles on cheap speed of late: http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/dirty-dozen/ Of that list I'd rock the bimmer, the CRX (and have rocked), the fox, the miata, the volvo, and questionably the S13. There's lots of cheap build options out there, just got to be creative and think outside the box.

For a street, or even hot street head I wouldn't lose sleep over slight wipe pattern differences. Now, if I was revving the thing to 9k+ and making 300hp then I'd be worried that I didn't cover my bases. All in all I'd call this a happy cam story, and I wouldn't try to make it into something else.

As a pure fabrication experience, it might not be bad. Cut your teeth on something that's relatively worthless. That said, I find that car to be too fare gone to be worth it if you're looking for a fun/price ratio.

Holy resurrection batman! You two realize this is about three years old now right? And as to your question davek: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flywheel+lightening Second result...

Serious bummer. And what really makes me concerned is that I'm betting his location restriction has to do with costs of flying out and getting one home... But if he can't afford that, then do you really think he'll pull off a RB swap? If you can't fly to the west coast to find your clean S30, then odds are you should start with a cheap project, as a whole. Buy something that doen't need to be swapped and have fun with that for a while. Very few end up with a nice, clean, rust free hybridZ for under 10k, if not 15k. And those that do are extremely handy and do 90% of the work themselves, and that includes rust repair.

This is such a sad thread, because the best advice is getting completely ignored. Go back to post #2 and start there. The relay for the fuel pump is controlled by the ECU, you might still be having unhappy ECU issues. Could be a million things, but until you bust out the FSM and do a full engine harness test then you're trying to shoot ants with a canon, underwater, in the dark.

As the monkey pointed towards, there are eccentric plates everywhere in the OEM world. I'd only buy the $40 part posted above if my time spent in a junkyard wasn't worth my time. You could also just as easily make something if you're handy with basic fab tools. I could probably get away making one with only a drill press handy. Also remember that there are other places to add eccentricity into the system...

If you have the OEM downpipe there's a good chance any local exhaust shop can cut the flange off the old one and reuse it. Most exhaust shops shouldn't charge more than about $150 to make one for you. It's about $20-30 worth of material + their market + their time. If you make it yourself and have small quantities of materials shipped to you it'll cost you closer to around $50 in materials + your time. If you have a welder it's not a bad way to go...

Bolded for truth... ...even the cheapie harbor freight dial indicator will work fine for this, and you can even make your own degree wheel... Ever heard of a printer? I'll even take 10 seconds out of my day to find... ...that. You're welcome. Print, glue to cardboard, done!.

260ET, let's think about this... what creates heat in the inlet temps? I mean, the REAL root cause... not a side factor. You say that the engines had a comparable turbo setup, but what does that mean? What exact turbo(s) on each engine? And on some level I extremely agree with you. The ET heads suck compared to the DET. The L engine P90, or any other L head for that matter, suck compared to a KA, RB, 2JZ, etc head. But we have to deal with that if we want to continue pursuit of using that engine. But there's two things you seem married to. 1. A broad flat torque curve. 2. A boost level of 15psi. For the 1st point, I want to say that you'll only make a flat torque curve if you've got a VERY efficient head setup, which I just see as being very hard to do on the VG ET heads. Even the IMSA engine didn't have a "flat" torque curve, and instead dropped with RPM just like all the VG dyno's I've seen. The exception is that they were also running a staged boost setup which kept the torque building as RPM's would rise. I think you can achieve a nice "power band" but that's not torque, which is what you've stated. To the 2nd point, there's TONS of dyno's out there, some of which belong to people I've met and trust, of people making 400+ to the wheels on the VG3XET. ALL of them are well beyond 15psi. That's just a fact of life unless you want to invest $20k in the heads to have a race motor build that will be completely unusable in most street driving scenarios. To fix your inlet temp issue, you need the right turbo for your setup, which it sounds like you don't have. One turbo might have nice temps at 15psi flowing 400hp worth of fuel, while the same turbo might be terrible at making cool air flow at 15psi at 300hp worth of air. If I knew your turbo specs for each motor I could at least plot where on the compressor map you were at dyno'ed HP levels you stated, at 15psi and figure out where you were in it's efficiency, and about what RPM range it was running at. Knowing that will go a LONG way to figuring out if that turbo should have more power in it for that setup or not. Just because a turbo can make 500hp on one engine, doesn't mean it can even make 300hp on another. On of the big reasons I don't exactly like using the Holset turbos on the L engine is that most of them are made for diesel engines and are designed for REALLY high PSI levels, which means that's where the efficiency is. Run that turbo at 10-20psi and odds are you'll never extract it's full potential. Just some food for thought. I'm not trying to bash you or what you want, just help you find your way in the dark.

Personally, for those goals I'd skip the meth. You're going to need a way to retard spark under boost, which means either swapping in the turbo ECU + Dizzy, which leads to + Wiring Harness + AFM, etc. At this point you might as well find a whole turbo donor... ...or you do a megasquirt system, which can cost $300/400 or as much as $1500 depending on how fancy you want to go. There's guys that have reached your goals with the super low buck MS options. Agreed, one more reason to go with megasquirt... Quality control of spark and fuel will be key in keeping ANY force induced engine alive. The BIGGEST important difference between the L28et and other L motors is the control systems. Without it, or something comparable, you're lost. Too many of the L24/6/8(e) to ET conversions I've seen blow had to do with either leaving a stock NA dizzy on, or trying to use a NA ECU and/or sensors.

Well I'm close enough to the ballpark that my rough measurements tell me I need to take more accurate measurements to go much further on the exhaust manifold. My mock up turbo is now woefully not detailed enough, but all in time, as the nature of modeling and prototyping. Here's some pictures of the manifolds + turbo in relation to the steering. Note the fore-aft position of the compressor outlet versus the intake inlet... The goal would be perfect alignment, but I worry the compressor might have to go back a bit, or at least up, which will make plumbing fun to say the least. I'm not absolutely sure what block clearance looks like yet, but I tried to make sure I gave ample room there. More measurements to follow will allow me to make a mock-up block, head, and valve cover to get a better idea of the package. \ This gives you an idea of where the real-world clearance lies. That hot side wouldn't be quite that close, due to taper, but the compressor side is a larger OD, so it WILL be tight. Right where the rod representing the steering shaft ends is where the coupler is, which means another obstacle to consider as I get close to it. Overall it's certainly looking possible, and I think I can raise the turbo up a taste if I change the collector around a bit, and there's also the option to just step up pipe sizes as they merge and merge them further up to simplify the design back to be more similar to the earlier renderings. Oh, and as far as the intake goes, all looks to clear nicely, and that's a 7" runner from head surface to outer plenum surface. TOTAL length from gasket to outside is 13.68", more than short enough to not hit the shock tower. The only concern is hood clearance considering the angle the engine sits at, which will get measured soon as well. Worse case scenario I just add some radius to the runners. Not ideal from a fabrication standpoint, but an easy way to keep it all under the hood.

Not that I've ever had a disrespect for people who design and fabricate manifolds, but damn, it's even tough to design them 3D modeling! My hat is off to all those that did it old school, by measuring and cutting, all while anticipating what obstacles they'd be putting in front of them. For the sake of seeing how hard it would be to fit, I made a manifold with each runner making it all the way to a collector, so as to not limit flow as much... not an easy task. This iteration wouldn't really work perfectly, but it's close to being "plausible". Edit: Oh yea, all that above is 2.5" radius bends. I'm trying to stick to a single radius and going larger than that makes things QUITE difficult to package. Next step, in order to make my next version more realistic, is to take detailed measurements of my constraints (block, steering, etc). Will post measurements soon.

But he was told there isn't much power past that PSI level....

This thread shall rise again! So we all knew this was a bit of a pipe dream and as much of an engineer exercise, but I'm back at it. The plan is definitely still going to be running E85, as it's practically my religion now. Local station this week was sub $2 a gallon, while crappy CA 91 octane is hovering around $3.75-3.90. Obviously "saving money" and "car hobby" go together about as well as windex and eye drops, but E85 is so much cheaper than race gas that it just plain makes sense. The caveat here is that it's going to be a dual-fuel setup most likely, only running E85 under boost. And once again, my design has changed again... The more I gain experience with E85, and the more I see other people's builds, the more I'm convinced I don't need an intercooler for my goals. In fact, I'm pretty positive that with the standard head cooling mods I should have very little heat issue. The crux to achieving that of course is to generate as little heat as possible to begin with, so that the E85 can do it's job of soaking up what heat is there to keep temps manageable. This of course means a BIG turbo, and I don't expect it to produce full boost at 3,000rpm, but I'm okay with that. So this means it won't be a T3 flange. This also means I don't need to run a plenum on the opposite side of the engine, and it also means I don't need to run the compressor outlet around the engine... In theory the standard J pipe would work fine, as seen on 510six's build (easily googled by YOU). Except if I'm going to go through the work of doing a legit dual injection intake manifold, I might as well fab an exhaust manifold too right? So the plan is to build a manifold that might somehow magically avoid the steering shaft (will just relocate it if it just becomes a problem), and basically allows the turbo compressor to exit with a straight shot to the throttle body, which will be center mounted. I plan to run JUST enough gap between the turbo and throttle to install a BOV. I hope to run a reverse rotation turbo to make packaging easier, as this will put the compressor outlet on the "outside" against the strut tower, instead of the block. And of course, any update without pics is worthless right? I worked on this all morning, with my newborn boy snoozing in my arm. Gotta keep productive right? You can kinda of ignore the turbo. I modeled it real quick to get an idea of packaging, and how well my measurements all match up as far as flange for/aft position compared to the intake centerline. The header is a simple design, and you can tell I'm not concerned about equal length, or even perfect flow. What I care about is packaging and easy of fabrication. I do have access to a TIG, and even a decent operator if I don't like my stainless work, but I don't have a good bender, so I'll be buying bends to make it all work. So the simpler the design the better in that regard. The flange isn't perfect yet, as it needs more clearance for the intake on top, but it's a start. Obviously the pipes will mate to the flange CORRECTLY.... Duh. But that flange is exactly as spec'ed on Garrett's website for the GT3788, though that's not a reverse spin turbo, it's just roughly the size I'm looking at. Where the primaries merge I'll probably also be going up in size to reduce possible restrictions. Overall I'm liking the idea of separating 123, and 456 on a twin scroll setup like that, but I'm worried that unless I give them a good 3" of merged pipe at the end that a quick spool valve is out of the question. Thoughts are welcome. This intake is also one I made just for flow analysts, and I'll probably have to run longer runners to make space for the second set of injectors. I do plan to run a good thick plate at the beginning of the runners/end of the plenum, which will allow some significant radius to encourage flow without going insane with having bell mouths inside the plenum. And for those curious, I got better flow on this design than almost any other box plenums I came up with. The CRAZY thing though... is how much my flow analysis changed once I added DYNAMIC pressure inputs to create realistic pulsing from only having valves open for a certain time and such. I went with data I found elsewhere as far as pressure difference created, and I'm still not sure how "accurate" my calculations were, but it was a night and day difference going from a static flow. If you just assume all valves are open equally during flow testing, then the OEM manifold would leave certain runners DANGEROUSLY starved compared to others, and we know by looking at our plugs that this isn't the case. The fact that not every valve is ever open, and that adjacent valves are never demanding air at the same time helps smooth out runner to runner inconsistencies, helping balance out even the poorer designs. But all that really should be in a different topic, just thought it might interest those that have followed this thread in the past. So yea, I now have access to quality fabrication tools, as well as a few people to hold my hand learning to do some of this stuff, and already my welding skills have gone from naught, to not terrible quite swiftly. Now I just need the time and money, which won't be overnight, but I can sort of see it on the horizon. These manifold won't get made until MS3 is installed and well tuned on pump gas, then I'm going to sort out some other basics before I get to building these. As I'm building these I'll also be building up a new head on the side, and maybe starting a collection of junkyard short blocks. So this obviously isn't starting tomorrow, but unless I sell my Z (which I don't think the wife would let me do) I'll be building something related to this in the future.

I'm with Tony on this. Using caster adjustment for sake of steering at low speed is a fool's folly. I'd only adjust caster in tuning at the track, as certain tires like different caster amounts. Other than that I just make sure they're within spec and the same as each other side to side.

That's what worries my wife about moving into a place with more land...

I know i'm just splitting hairs here, and I don't doubt your experience.. But in the 1st example, that's a turbo engine... which I guarantee is a SOLID 50lbs heavier than the NA configuration. The T5 is also about 20lbs heavier than the NA transmission too (I've had them side by side more than once). And though I agree with you on the LS1 weight. An all aluminum LS will weight in right over 400 lbs... but that's usually without accessories, and most people with readings sub 400lbs turn out to not have a flywheel on it... The problem is that you can get a LS1 weight anywhere from 385-440lbs depending on how you trim it. It's the same story with any motor. The stock NA L series you replaced probably had the stock cast manifold that's a boat anchor. It probably also had the stone age AC compressor that weighs about 30lbs. There's all sorts of accessories that add up, and things that can be changed. The reality is that a BARE longblock, complete only from oil pan to valve cover, DRY is only around 400lbs, right in the same range as the LS... ..but my point wasn't about the LS versus the L28, it was the LS versus the VG. It's pretty well documented that the VG30E is WELL under 400lbs, possibly as low as 320lbs depending on how it's dressed. At any rate, even the turbo variant will be light than a LS, and even if it's "close" then the weight is still much further back, which is desirable for some, and a valid reason to want to go with that platform. Once again, to reiterate, I'm not against LS swaps. I'm just saying have an open mind about why someone might want to go with a particular platform, that's all. There is no best.

The V8 isn't lighter than the L motor. Your front end went upwards because the weight was so much further back... The L engine weights are well documented here on this site, as well as LS weights. And the VG in non turbo form is WELL under 400 lbs, even lighter than the LS. Maybe not 100lbs, but between engine and trans? Maybe. I was making the point that there's OTHER FACTORS than HP. The packaging of a V6 is about as good as good gets if that's your goal. The VG30ET might be about the same weight as a LS, but it's also got cast manifolds and a heavy turbo. If we were comparing NA versus NA, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 75+ lb difference. Since it only took 5 seconds to find... http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/59086-enginetrans-weights-definitive/

Ummm, how about saving about 100lbs, and putting the weight even FURTHER back compared to the stock L6... Plenty of reasons to go with the VG, even if it's not what you'd do. Yea but that's not really the topic here... Nothing wrong with the VQ imo, I'm just saying that the topic is in regard to the VG, and there's nothing "wrong" with that. There's VERY limited reasons power will stop increasing linearly per PSI. #1 reason is heat. Turbos out of their pressure ratio/flow optimization will start creating too much heat to be worth it. #2. Pressure ratio in relation to boost versus backpressure can start to really reduce power increases. There's PLENTY of examples showing real world setups that actually produce MORE pressure in the exhaust than the intake, and they're "just fine" by many standards. But when you start to reach 3, or even 4 bar of pressure to make 2 bar in the intake... well power per PSI will be down. Put the RIGHT turbo on, for the power goals, and you'll find a much easier task of reaching those goals. You know.... Add E85 to that dyno and I'd say you're damn close to your goals already... I don't think he was saying that. Those engines also don't run 15psi to make those power levels and the VG is simply going to require more than 15psi to get there on OE heads. But let's look at this a different way... Power on boost will be DIRECTLY influenced by what power the engine makes NA. A 3 liter VG makes roughly similar power levels as the L when bored/stroked to 3 liters. The L engine's main advantage is RPM. It's not rocket science to make a L engine rev to 8k or beyond, and even make peak power at 6k or above. The VG is extremely hard to make peak power levels up there, and do it well. But if you compare a VG and a L engine that both peak at 5k, then you'll see they make very similar HP & Torque for a given level of build. What's my point in all this? Without serious headwork, few make it to 400hp in a L engine for very long. It takes high PSI, which means high heat, which means hard to manage tuning. Do some headwork, and cam it so it makes power higher up and all of the sudden you find quite a few examples making 400+hp. There's plenty of examples of VG's making 400+hp, and the ones that have nice power bands have headwork done and other supporting mods. It sounds to me like you want Jason's highest dyno figure posted, but he required 20-21psi to get there. But his head work + cams certainly paid off as he made peak HP at about 5600, with a peak power of 450, with 400+ HP range from 4300-6300rpm. Not too shabby... The kicker is that even he DID NOT have a huge torque band, and shows a similar torque curve as most restrictive head dynos I've seen... But that's also what gives the motor it's very BROAD HP curve, which I personally find a desirable trait for some applications. If you want something that makes peak torque from full boost till redline you want something with REALLY good heads, which the VG will never be. Example: What's this 450hp mystery engine? Just a wee litle 1.6 liter running 20psi... Yes, that's right, a 1.6 liter... HALF the size of Jason's VG engine, make the SAME HP at the SAME PSI level... It's a Honda B16. But at least Jason's engine made that power for a FAR larger RPM band, and would thus propel a car to much faster times at the 1/4 mile.