dr_hunt

Well, I've lost 2 dogs to coyotes, coyotes run in packs and 4 on 2 isn't much of a fight, they kill dogs and cats on a regular basis. I've personally watched a pack of 5 coyote chasing deer and eventually catching one before my 6.5 x 300 weatherby mag splattered one of the 5 all over the hillside. We have wolves here, introduced by environmentalists, it is a huge disaster with pets, livestock, etc, getting killed all the time. Wolves relocated when they become a problem. All of this at a huge expense to all taxpayers no less. Anyone who has hunted wolves and coyotes will tell you that coyotes are around because of an inherent fear of humans developed by people shooting at them. In some areas, coyotes are almost tame, but that would change if lead was flying. Wolves on the other hand are not scared of humans. I encountered wolves in Wyoming while hunting horseback and had them follow me for about 1/2 mile. Never seen a coyote do that. Consequently I have the top of the line foxpro game call, remote control decoy and I hunt coyotes year round.

Thanks everyone!

Looks like a design problem to me. Easy to see that it's going to try to spit the mainshaft gear to the back under load. Anyone have pictures of the HD $300 upgrade? 2 snap rings would definately be better than one but I'm not sure that's the best fix. I was considering going manual in the next z cause I just like having a manual in a sports car. But I am now leaning towards the t56 rather than the t5.

440 horses rwhp or fwhp? rwhp I'm assuming. Yeah, your probably going to get a taste of that HP and want some more, kind of like JNJ boys.

Nice

That sucks!

Well, that is a debated subject. OEM rod strength is typically not a concern as the rod bolts fail long before the rod itself. I have seen OEM 400 rods live for long periods of time on the dirt track with 14 to 1 compression and big solid or roller cams. Keep in mind that if properly prepped with proper machine work on the block, crank, rods, etc. you probably won't have much of a problem IMHO. Aftermarket rods are IMO insurance and well worth the additional $350 cost over the rework cost ($180) for stock rods which includes aftermarket bolts. If your going to add NOS or some other power adder the life may be shorter than if it were NA.

I know you don't have my address dan, but here it is so you can send me those z parts that you know I always wanted. Doc Just left of the big tree on the right. 75 miles frm anywhere Socorro, NM 87801 I'm sure I'll get it! :lmao:

Thanks guys, it was great. Had a suprise party last night, dinner, cake and ice cream. It was the little woman, her kids, my mom and sister, so it was real nice. Off today to go shopping for ceramic tile cause I'm going to tile my house. If only I could work on cars. hmmmmmmmm Anyway, I bought myself a 25ft gooseneck camper trailer with a slide out so I can go camping and hunting more. LOL More, sheesh can anyone think of more of that. Thanks guys for making hybridz one of the most enjoyable places to be. Doc

well who knows, I have a boost gauge on mine, it reads 15 when floored and accelerating. 18 when pulling a long hill at constant speed. It's bone stock, but then vehicles probably vary somewhat.

I have a 1.9 TDI in a jetta. Stock boost is 15psi, not 8psi, and under a load like a long hill it'll get to 18psi. It is a very nice engine. The remapping will up the boost to 20psi with the stock turbo. You'll need a bigger turbo to get much more if anything out of it IMO. 250HP?!!! Well, considering that stock it's 110HP, that is a pretty big increase. I suspect you'll have to have more mods than just a remap, injectors, intercooler or even a chip. But I've heard great things about the durability.

If I were you I'd run as fast as I could the other way. The DSM is a completely unreliable automobile from the engine, trans, AWD transfer case back. I built one to the tune of 600HP lasted awhile until the $4K built trans exploded.

Looks alot like mine, seems z's are a natural candidate for such a dash don't it. Just remember to paint it all flat black. Kind of looks like gloss black right now in the pic's

True, moving the engine mounting position has nothing to do with weight distribution of the car. Moving the center of mass does. I agree wholeheartedly.

Well, I made mine. Took the stock chevy motor mount bracket (block) cut out just the portion that bolts to the block (triangle shape), welded a 1-5/8" mild steel tube at about a 30 degree angle or so to the stock nissan mount pad with my mig. also I have fabricated front motor plate to both heads that go to frame. I think I'd be more concerned with the quality of weld than the strength of the matierial or thickness IMHO. Watching my dad tig weld airplane frames when I was a kid made a believer out of me, especially when someone has to fly the damn thing later! Also with the resulting weight percentage being almost 50/50 with the jtr mounts and driver included, what's the point. Increased load on the trans mount, gimme a break. What do you think is going on when you launch a car using a trans brake?!!!!! I doubt any static weight on a trans mount can compare to the rotational force exerted during launch. Don't split hairs, for asphault, rigid frames seem to give more predictable resultant forces IMO!

I'm fixing to buy some as well.

Bet your really itchin to drive it! Congrats!

Building a cage for a 10.00 cert isn't that big of a deal, faster than that it gets alot more complicated. Having built one in a z you'll find that completing the welds without cutting access holes is pretty tricky. Removing the roof isn't necessary unless you want a close fitting cage. Going into the engine compartment would be necessary for an 8 second car. Hinged door bars are legal so I wouldn't worry about that. If you join NHRA for $70 for a year you get $400K insurance going to and coming from any NHRA race plus National Dragster and a rule book. Cheap for $70 IMHO.

I got the 1080p, question though. Is the blue ray the only one that transmits in the 1080p or does the hd dvd do that as well?

Well I got it all, 40" Samsung 1080 HD, samsung Blue Ray, HD Satellite, PS3 and samsung home theatre. Package at Best Buy for $3K last week plus the satellite upgrade.

There is nothing wrong with 9:1 compression. I don't know why everyone always wants to have more compression. If you spring for the better heads the more efficient combustion chamber design will make more power than a 0.5 increase in compression IMHO!

I'm going to summarize this one more time. Then I'm closing this thread. Gasoline is what most of our cars came setup so it's usually what we stick with. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons. The petroleum distillate fraction termed "gasoline" contains mostly saturated hydrocarbons usually with a chemical formula of C8H18. The air fuel ratio, A/F Ratio, for complete combustion is 14.7:1, stoichiometric. The A/F ratio for maximum power is approximately 12.5:1 - 12.8:1. This means that a theoretcial engine at max power, 12.8:1, consumes 12.8 pounds of air for 1 pound of fuel. Gasoline has approximately 18,400 BTU/lb . Using the air flow calculator with the default inputs we will use a 355 SBC, so it consumes 567.53 cfm @ 6500rpm which is 42.64 pounds of air and consumes 2.89 pounds of fuel. Therefore if we are using gasoline our engine is producing 53,176 BTU's of energy at 6500 rpm. Alcohol is usually used in the form of Methyl alcohol or methanol. CH3OH is the chemical formula. Methanol burns at a much richer mixture than gasoline does, between 5.0:1 - 6.0:1. That's 5 lbs of air to one pound of fuel. Methanol has approximately 9,500 BTU/lb. Using our 355, example above, SBC consumes 567.53 cfm @ 6500rpm which is 42.64 pounds of air and now at 6.0:1 ratio for Methanol is 7.11 pounds of fuel. Therefore if we are using Methanol fuel our engine is producing 67,545 BTU's of energy at 6500 rpm. Nitromethane is a fuel that is used mostly in specialized drag racing classes, "nitro funny cars" and "top fuel". Nitromethane's chemical formula is CH3NO2. The oxygen in nitromethane's molecular structure means that nitromethane does not need as much atmospheric oxygen to burn, part of the oxygen needed to burn nitromethane is carried in the fuel itself. Typical A/F ratio for nitromethane is 1.7:1 and nitromethane has an energy content of 5,000 BTU/lb. Using our 355, example above, SBC consumes 567.53 cfm @ 6500rpm which is 42.64 pounds of air and now at 1.7:1 ratio for nitromethane is 25.08 pounds of fuel. Therefore if we are using Nitromethane fuel our engine is producing 125,412 BTU's of energy at 6500 rpm. Clearly Nitro is the winner here. Methanol makes about 20% more power in the same engine than gas does. Hence the saying, Gas is for washing parts, alcohol is for drinking and nitro is for racing!

It might seem odd that fuels with higher octane ratings explode less easily, yet are popularly thought of as more powerful. The misunderstanding is caused by confusing the ability of the fuel to resist compression detonation as opposed to the ability of the fuel to burn. What you should be looking at is Btu/lb, not Btu/gallon. A simple explanation is that carbon-carbon bonds contain more energy than carbon-hydrogen bonds. Hence a fuel with a greater number of carbon bonds will carry more energy regardless of the octane rating. A premium motor fuel will often be formulated to have both higher octane as well as more energy. A counter example to this rule is that ethanol blend fuels have a higher octane rating, but carry a lower energy content by volume (per litre or per gallon). This is because ethanol is a partially oxidized hydrocarbon which can be seen by noting the presence of oxygen in the chemical formula: C2H5OH. Note the substitution of the OH hydroxyl group for a H hydrogen which transforms the gas ethane (C2H6) into ethanol. To a certain extent a fuel with a higher carbon ratio will be more dense than a fuel with a lower carbon ratio. Thus it is possible to formulate high octane fuels that carry less energy per liter than lower octane fuels. This is certainly true of ethanol blend fuels (gasohol), however fuels with no ethanol and indeed no oxygen are also possible. Well, if your talking about a gallon of fuel, perhaps but that's not a correct analogy and that is the flaw in your statement, it's the stoichiometric ratio of fuel to oxygen as it's mixed in the engine that matters! So, if your going to make a point then we have to do it correctly. If gasoline is run at its preferred maximum power air/fuel mixture of 12.5:1, it will release approximately 20 MJ (about 19,000 BTU) of energy, where ethanol run at its preferred maximum power mixture of 6.5:1 will liberate approximately 25.7 MJ (24,400 BTU), and methanol at a 4.5:1 AFR liberates about 29.1 MJ (27,650 BTU), that is why oxygenated fuels make more power and VP and others are making oxygenated race fuels. It gets even better when you run Nitro! I think that about covers it for this topic

I'm more than alittle disappointed in the above answers to an otherwise good question. If you don't have anything good to say, intellegent or otherwise, then don't bother. Hybridz isn't like the other sites you visit where that kind of activity is condoned. I hope you all get the hint.

Here is the skinny folks; The most common type of octane rating worldwide is the Research Octane Number (RON). RON is determined by running the fuel in a test engine with a variable compression ratio under controlled conditions, and comparing these results with those for mixtures of isooctane and n-heptane. There is another type of octane rating, called Motor Octane Number (MON) or the aviation lean octane rating, which is a better measure of how the fuel behaves when under load. MON testing uses a similar test engine to that used in RON testing, but with a preheated fuel mixture, a higher engine speed, and variable ignition timing to further stress the fuel's knock resistance. Depending on the composition of the fuel, the MON of a modern gasoline will be about 8 to 10 points lower than the RON. Normally fuel specifications require both a minimum RON and a minimum MON. In most countries (including all of Europe and Australia) the "headline" octane that would be shown on the pump is the RON, but in the United States, Canada and some other countries the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, sometimes called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI), Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or (R+M)/2. Because of the 8 to 10 point difference noted above, this means that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points lower than the same fuel elsewhere: 87 octane fuel, the "regular" gasoline in the US and Canada, would be 91-92 in Europe. However most European pumps deliver 95 (RON) as "regular", equivalent to 90-91 US (R+M)/2, and even deliver 98 (RON) or 100 (RON). The octane rating may also be a "trade name", with the actual figure being higher than the nominal rating.[citation needed] It is possible for a fuel to have a RON greater than 100, because isooctane is not the most knock-resistant substance available. Racing fuels, straight ethanol, AvGas and liquified petroleum gas (LPG) typically have octane ratings of 110 or significantly higher - ethanol's RON is 129 (MON 102, AKI 116) reference[2]. Typical "octane booster" additives include tetra-ethyl lead and toluene. Tetra-ethyl lead is easily decomposed to its component radicals, which react with the radicals from the fuel and oxygen that would start the combustion, thereby delaying ignition. This is why leaded gasoline has a higher octane rating than unleaded. CJames you are incorrect; A premium motor fuel will often be formulated to have both higher octane as well as more energy. Compression is directly related to power (see engine tuning), so engines that require higher octane usually deliver more power. Engine power is a function of the fuel as well as the engine design and is related to octane ratings of the fuel. Power is limited by the maximum amount of fuel-air mixture that can be forced into the combustion chamber. At partial load, only a small fraction of the total available power is produced because the manifold is operating at pressures far below atmospheric. In this case, the octane requirement is far lower than what is available. It is only when the throttle is opened fully and the manifold pressure increases to atmospheric (or higher in the case of supercharged or turbocharged engines) that the full octane requirement is achieved. Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression and thus need a high quality (high energy) fuel usually associated with high octane numbers and thus demand high-octane premium gasoline. The power output of an engine depends on the energy content of its fuel, and this bears no simple relationship to the octane rating. A common understanding that may apply in only limited circumstances amongst petrol consumers is that adding a higher octane fuel to a vehicle's engine will increase its performance and/or lessen its fuel consumption; this may be false under most conditions — while engines perform best when using fuel with the octane rating for which they were designed and any increase in performance by using a fuel with a different octane rating is minimal or even imaginary, unless there are carbon hotspots, fuel injector clogging or other conditions that may cause a lean situation that can cause knocking that are more common in high mileage vehicles, which would cause modern cars to retard timing thus leading to a loss of both responsiveness and fuel economy. This also does not apply to turbocharged vehicles, which may be allowed to run greater advance in certain circumstances due to external temperatures. Using high octane fuel for an engine makes a difference when the engine is producing its maximum power or when under a high load such as climbing a large hill or carrying excessive weight. This will occur when the intake manifold has no air restriction and is running at minimum vacuum. Depending on the engine design, this particular circumstance can be anywhere along the RPM range, but is usually easy to pinpoint if you can examine a printout of the power output (torque values) of an engine. On a typical high-revving motorcycle engine, for example, the maximum power occurs at a point where the movements of the intake and exhaust valves are timed in such a way to maximize the compression loading of the cylinder; although the piston is already rising at the time the intake valve closes, the forward speed of the charge coming into the cylinder is high enough to continue to load the air-fuel mixture in. When this occurs, if a fuel with below recommended octane is used, the engine will knock. Modern engines have anti-knock provisions built into the control systems and this is usually achieved by dynamically de-tuning the engine while under load by increasing the fuel-air mixture and retarding the spark. Here is a link to a white paper that gives an example: [5] . In this example, the engine maximum power is reduced by about 4% with a fuel switch from 93 to 91 octane (11 hp, from 291 to 280 hp). If the engine is being run below maximum load, the difference in octane will have even less effect. The example cited does not indicate at what elevation the test is being conducted or what the barometric pressure is. For each 1000 feet of altitude the atmospheric pressure will drop by a little less than 11 kPa/km (1 inHg). An engine that might require 93 octane at sea level may perform at maximum on a fuel rated at 91 octane if the elevation is over, say, 1000 feet. See also the APC article.