pparaska

Yeah, I'd just drive it too. If you do need another diff, maybe an R230 viscous .

Thanks for writing all that. No problem with port scans, it's just driving me a bit nuts checking what that little icon on the taskbar is flashing about. Before this month, I had only a few HTTP port scans. These aren't friendly either, they're Code Red virus originated. BTW, I DO report Subseven hack attacks with all the documentation they want and I usually get info back that something has been done with the offender (although they never will say WHAT). I figure they're just script kiddies, but I love smacking them a bit. Punks are punks, whether behind a computer or driving their rice junk.

If you can get me flow numbers for those heads, I'd be glad to run it through DD2000 tonight. I'd say 350-400 flywheel HP, not sure. I think the 375 guess is pretty good.

Not too long. The problems are rust in the block (heads too if iron) and obviously for some of us, freezing in certain parts of the year. I'd say after you are sure it will stay together and there are no leaks, drain the water and put in coolant.

Jim, it should take about 25 ft lbs to turn one tire relative to the other, if the LSD is still within spec preload. If you had one tire blocked or sitting on something so it wouldn't turn, but the other on free, with a 25" tire, you'd have about a foot moment arm. So it'd take about 25 lbs of force applied in the tangential direction (act like you're the road trying to spin the tire) to make it brake loose. If it takes less, then the LSD is somewhat loose. Don't forget brake pad drag will make it harder to turn that tire also. Clutch LSDs do burn up (right Scottie ? ). The parts aren't CRAZY expensive, but a new set of clutch parts is over $100, more like $200, I think.

Jim, you're right, the 94-97 replacement T-56 IS $2995. The after market T-56 that uses the regular T-5 bellhousing and clutch/flywheel is $2295: http://www.sallee-chevrolet.com/BorgWarner/bwt56.html

Agreed, bbbowtie! Nothing I like more about working on hotrods than building engines! (Even if it's building them OVER cause you screwed something up ) Glad to see another 327 going in! Looks great! Specs?

Me too. I thought I had built the motor well and had antifreeze in it. The WP/block area leaked. Well, that's all minor now . Next time, I'll just put water in to start it .

I get HTTP hits (probably port 80, haven't looked) about once every 5 minutes in the last few weeks (since the first of the month. Must be Code Red hits. Many come from @home (which I'm one) and other cable modem users. They look to be non-commercial users like me - probably running IIS. Too bad MS put that on the Win2K CD! I run NetworkIce's blackIce and it reports this stuff (as well as other stuff). One thing's interesting, other hits are way down (Subseven probes, TCP probes, NTTP probes, etc.) Maybe Code Red is drowning out the other hackers? Anyway, I haven't been reporting any of the hits on the HTTP port probes, figuring the ISPs will shut them down eventually. Should I? IT's a bunch of work. I almost always report Subseven port probes. I had that virus once a few months ago and had to reinstall the OS Of topic again Oh well.

The way I see it, all things considered equal, the 3.1 will have 10% more hp, torque than the 2.8. The price of parts is one thing, the price of headaches (if there are any going to the 3.1L) is another thing to consider. BUT, does the increase in stroke allow for more cylinder filling with a turbo, meaning more gas in the combustion chamber after compression stroke is over? I've read that large combustion chambers are better for a turbo motor, since there is more room available (with the same boost) for fuel and air. Of course, this could be all hogwash, since I am no turbo guru .

That's GREAT news. With the rass (cough) of bottom end bad luck the SBC guys have been having (through no fault of GM), it's great to hear you really don't have a problem with the motor!

Sallee Chevrolet sells a manual for the aftermarket T-56: http://www.sallee-chevrolet.com/BorgWarner/bwt56.html Not sure if it's much different inside than the OE one.

Scottie-GNZ has some great advice there. Just some general thoughts from one of the old guys who's been around the "I gotta go faster" thing a few times: The level of performance that even hopped up street cars have these days makes the 60's muscle cars (stock) look slow. 12 seconds on the street is plenty to get in trouble with and alot of fun. There's always someone faster - and faster is a bar that's raised constantly these days, in leaps and bounds. Also, going faster is expensive AND generally more maintenance intensive - to include replacing broken parts! But the desire for more speed, lower E.T. is an endless thing, until you convince yourself that "more" is more trouble and expense than is reasonable for you. Sorry to ramble - but I see myself and others get caught up in this never ending quest to be faster/quicker all the time. I try to avoid it, but it keeps coming back . Maybe therapy is in order for me - NAH!

Ross, I agree with BLKMGK - the R230 swap could use a complete documentation AND it'd be great if custom mounts were offered as well. The big thing is the halfshafts. This is where a group buy would be very helpful. If you're willing to engineer this swap for sale, I'd think you'd have a decent number of takers.

Paul, that looks great! I'm usually not a big fan of flares, but those look very tasteful! That's a heck of alot of meat under there!

All hearsay, but what I've read/heard is that the R200 ring and pinion is plenty strong. It's the spider gears and shaft that break, etc. And a single wheeled burnout puts alot of torque and rpm through those spider gears. I say put the other (good?) R200 in and stay away from the tire frying exhibitions. Use Amsoil, Redline, or Royal Purple Synthetic fluid of the right type (GL-5) and weight (dunno - 85W90?)

I see no mention in the history page of the Z swap kit. Different company, I suppose.

I had no idea they (Nordskog) were still around. Isn't that kit a "scarab" placement swap?

I've had the Wilwoods for a few years, but they haven't gotten much use past bleeding, loading on and off the trailer to go to the paint shop (twice now!) and a quick ride up and down the street. They don't seem to hang or anything, as recent as this past Friday. I haven't put seals in them, and I don't think Jim Biondo did either when he had them.

Was the Nordskog gage meant for the Z's sender? Or did they include a "black box" to hook between the stock sender and supplied gage? I've never actually seen a Nordskog kit, but have the literature from years ago. Do you have the entire engine swap kit?

A non-OD trans with a 3.9 and a V8 will get tiresome on the highway. Around town, it'd be fun though. Talk to Hanlon Motorsports, etc. They might be willing to send a rebuilt or new T5 your way.

Ah, a happy HybridZ member. I feel warm all over, don't you . scottyMiz, it goes both ways - you are pleasant and mature in your posts and the membership reciprocates. Kind of like real life!

I did NOT use them for three reasons: 1) They weren't needed to get the engine to fit back in the compartment. I did not use their hood latch bracket, so clearance there was not an issue for me either. 2) They take away from already insufficient oilpan to road clearance. 3) They made my driveshaft u-joint angles worse than without them. My site has some info on the last point under "Drivetrain Mods" Cheers,

I'm going to bow out of this one. I think my answer on number 1 is one of those "bad data points" the statisticians would throw out. 11+ years just isn't in the "statistically significant" realm . Seems someone had a couple of week long buy engine to install I'e seen recently. [ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]

Thanks for the kudos, Dick. It's actually back in the paint shop to be repainted. They didn't give it the level of paint finish that was expected and are redoing it now.