pparaska

It's not just Mike. All the Admins and Moderators I've spoken and emailed with each other are aware of what's going on lately. Mike, all, I have a rather pragmatic observation to make: ANYONE that breathes and can use a computer or WebTV appliance and has an email address can join HybridZ. That hardly makes a "community", until "we" all agree on the way things should and should not be done, and whether we want to follow the rules. Those that don't want to abide become disenfranchised from the "community". This might mean that people post negative things about them, that they get warned by members/moderators/admins, etc., or that they get banned. The rules are here to let new "members" of our "community" know what is expected of them. The members/moderators/admins from time to time have to step in and say something or do something. It's not just Mikelly or pparaska.

Agreed. Sorry I didn't LOOK closer before posting this.

Your DCR is that high BECAUSE the 274 duration is somewhat mild. To lower it, either lower the static compression ratio, or use MORE intake Duration. Actually, you really just need to play with the Intake Valve Closing point. Move it to later ABDC, and the DCR will fall. BTW, I used 15cc dished pistons on my 406, for just that reason - to lower the static compression ratio to 10.5:1

"quite mistaken"? No, I don't agree. vegeta, those DOHC heads for the SBC are basically an unknown. Grumpyvette tried to get real info on them, and it didn't happen. And their claim of: "Torque The dyno also reveals a broad, flat torque curve with a peak of 437 lb./ft @ 4500 RPM. In fact, 85% of the torque occurs all the way from 3000-6000 RPM!" That's a torque curve with 85% or better of max torque over 3000 rpm. That's about typical for a well configured 2 valve per cylinder engine. Compare that to Phantom's LS1's "90%+ of the maximum torque from 1500 to 5400 rpm" That's 90%+ (not 85%) of max torque or better over 3900rpm. Which would you say was "broader" or more "flat"? Everything I read on that page about the DOHC heads sounds like a Madison Avenue story to get your $5K. Sure, with an 10:1 LT1 with those expensive heads versus brand X 2 valve OHV heads, they make 159 more peak HP. But at that price, I'd expect more! A new Z06 vette makes 405 hp at 6000 rpm, 400 lbft at 4800 rpm. I hardly think that 474 hp is a sh!tload more. Tweak the Z06, and that power is there, while still keeping within emissions. DOHC: Valve curtain area is a great thing. But without the valves opening/closing with alot of acceleration, the extra flow near overlap will hurt low end torque. And I agree with wheelman - SOHC isn't really much if any simpler. Now you have: 1 (or 2) long chain(s) 1 (or 2) tensioner(s) various chain guides 2 cam sprockets 2 cams 2 cam bearing sets versus 1 SHORT chain (fewer links, less chance of failure, less friction?) 0 tensioners 0 chain guides 1 cam sprocket 1 cam 1 cam bearing set, 16 simple lifters (which can be solid or hyd, BTW - solid can be lighter, getting away from the rpm issue somewhat) 16 pushrods. (Oh, and the lifters would be roller, not a cam wiping across a rocker arm.) I bet the friction difference is not very large, and may even benefit the Cam-in-block OHV design. Remember, if the engine is designed with a 4000-wide rpm power band, and 6000 is near redline, PUSHROD/OHV CAN HANDLE THE PROBLEM. No SOHC fanciness/cost/etc. needed. Just because Ford puts SOHC 4.6L engines in many different vehicles that cost less than a Vette (WAY cheaper?) doesn't prove anything. And the design parameters are different. ALso, alot of Mustang guys like the old pushrod 5.0L engine, since it made more power and more torque down low. BTW, the LS1 is sold in more than just the Vette. I have a challenge for you - try looking at this WITHOUT the hard bias against simple engineering solutions (i.e., pushrods). Your arguments sound like they come from someone that's an engine-technology snob. Go back and read what you wrote again, wiith the viewpoint of someone that can appreciate a Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) design philosophy, and see if I'm not the slightest bit right. Like johnc said, the LS1 bridge is a less sophisticated bridge than is that typically designed in Germany and Japan, but that doesn't mean it's an inferior engineering solution to the problem of "what to put in the new vette?" Extra technology is just that - extra. Not needed to get teh job done. Like fl327 pointed out, the Europeans and Japanese had reasons to go after smaller engines - fuel prices and/or taxes on displacement. So they improved the SOHC and DOHC engine designs that have been around for 100+ years, with small displacement, to make THEIR designs match the design parameters. Nothing wrong with that! It's just that for NA engines, what you give up in engine displacement, you give up in low rpm torque. VVT/VTEC/etc. was developed to get around that, and it's a wonderful thing. But for larger displacement engines, it's not needed, but it'd be a nice EXTRA! Oh yeah, wheelman, if pushrods flex, it's all over. They compress, but if they flex, they WILL bend - and stay that way. A pushrod is just a 1-force member - it goes under compression alone (neglecting the miniscule moments put on the ends of the pushrod by the lifters or rockers). So it acts like a column, which won't bend, until it buckles, and then its all over. This won't happen if good parts of sufficient stiffness, etc. are used - an old engineering problem that was worked out a long time ago.

vegeta, there's alot I could say, but I don't have the time. One minor point, most people, when told to relax, do just the opposite. I think you keep missing the point about DESIGN for the intended use, and KISS. For the DESIGN parameters of the C5, the LS1 does all it needs to, with the "low tech" stuff you talk about: 2 valves per cylinder, cam-in-block, non-VVT, activated by pushrods get the job done, simple as that. No need for all the extra rotating and reciprocating parts that 4 valves per cylinder, VVT, bring along. The cost is lower, and the number of moving parts are lower, increasing reliability, most likely reducing friction as well. 4 valves per cylinder are only really needed if you plan on reving the engine. In the LS1, 2 valves make plenty of power to 6 grand. 400 crank hp. Going to OHC, 4 valves/cylinder, VVT isn't needed for the DESIGN parameters (high, table-flat torque curve from 1500 to 6000 rpm) of the C5. So why would GM spend the extra development and production costs, if it's not needed? It's called KISS. And it's one of the reasons that the C5 is spoken of as the best bang for the buck in the sports/GT class. 4 valves per cylinder, without VVT that basically shuts down the second set of extra valves, kills low rpm response, since it lowers the port velocity. To make a 4 valve/cylinder engine have any low or low-mid rpm torque, you HAVE to go to VVT. Otherwise, you likely get a high rpm torque band. And the GM engineers decided that was NOT in their DESIGN parameters. It really is FORM following FUNCTION. And not over-engineering the engine just to please those that think pushrods are a joke. The EvolutionVIII and WRX STI must be comparatively BEAT ON to get the performance the C5 delivers. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you're willing to always have the engine screaming at the right rpm, etc. Great for a race car, no doubt! But many of us would not want to have to beat on our street cars to get the performance. Hence, the low revving, unsophisticated, large displacement, pushrod V8. Having said that, I'd LOVE to have 4 valves/cylinder and user tunable VVT on a large displacement V8. That's been my dream for over 20 years now. Of course, I could just buy a new BMW 745iL engine and have that - with almost complete control of the valve events. But who'd foot the bill?

Paul, I think your setup sounds like what I've seen suggested on the typical DIY EFI sites. How is the system working? BTW, is that surge tank from a mini-keg? What is that?

Wow, Rip Van Winkle, here. I've definitely been asleep at the wheel! I JUST saw the pics of this car from the Nov 2003 post. Absolutely beautiful car with great workmanship and KISS engineering! Who needs a IC when the thing gets kicked off the track without it! Definitely should have gotten some awards. I won't give you my opinion of why it didn't win - but it has to do with attitude. Definitely nothing about your car though - it's a winner! Beautiful, Hanns - I'd love to see it in person some day. If I get out west, I hope to look you up!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=2475047145&category=6187

Mike, many congrats! That sounds like a sweet deal - one that you couldn't do much better on - at the moment - in a year or two, you'll be turning down offers like that for better ones!! If something doesn't work out a year or two from now with this new company, your connections and history with that "world" will be even better than now and you'll be able to write your own ticket anywhere! I'm betting you have a very proud Ma, Pa, and little honey! Siding on that garage will look great! I hope the Z is getting some wrench attention too?

I'll wait for Mikelly to straighten that out for us. Just wondering, are there any aftermarket manufacturers of the repute of AFR that make cylinder heads for the Honda engine? Toyota? That are affordable? http://www.strokerkits.com/afr_lsi.htm Ever watch any NASCAR? Sure, they won't from the factory, but they don't NEED to. But that doesn't mean pushrods are some kind of square wheel or something. Do I smell bias? Unreliable electronics? Neanderthal valvetrain? These are generalizations. They have no basis in fact. They only show you're reaching for straws... Cast internals - nothing wrong with that if it's all that's needed... I bow down to the superior engineering. NOT Give ME a break vegeta. If you HAVE to turn rpms, use small journals since everything is about light weight, etc, you do get FORCED to use forged parts. That doesn't mean it's "a better design" - just a good design for the intended use - a very efficient high revving engine that's 2 liters or less. In 1962, the Chevy 327 had a forged crank, forged rods, some had forged pistons. Internally balanced too. Some had fuel injection. OHC would have made the engine huge, and it WASN'T NEEDED - it made 360hp@6000rpm, 352 lbft@400rpm without it: http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/muscle/corvette/62vette.frame Yes, I have. And just about all the cars out there a highly reliable, no matter where they come from. Yep, they were for the most part asleep at the wheel. But over-generalizing will not sway me.

Yeah, us old hot rodders are really ignorant about high tech engines. We don't realize that you can rev 4 cylinder and make lots of power - WRONG. My daily driver is a 92 Eclipse GSX. Fun. But I'd give up the finicky power of that engine for 250 all the time, NA hp in a heart beat. If the chambers get a bit of oil burnt in them (PCV valve) or it's a bit warm out the power falls off. Why? You mean you like to piss people off, just for the heck of it? Personally, I don't need that kind of BS in my life.

Yep. - Just having a bit of fun with Tim. His wounds (or his Z's wounds) are hurting, so I thought I'd boost his spirits - or throw some salt in them . Tim - you can always watch Speed TV or get on HybridZ and bench race .

Well, I check EVERYTHING else. And I found that the Eastwood tank sealer had started to flake off and intemittently clog the sock. I found that out when I relocated the fuel supply hose to a fitting I installed in the drain plug hole. After the car stalled many more times on a few short trips, and then started to leak a bit (thanks dcarrow for pointing that out at Mikelly's shindig!), I pulled the fitting from the drain hole and found it jammed with the sealer. After pulling the tank, I found large pieces loose on the bottom of the tank.

Still married, and so is Dan. Definitely cool that it's "fixed".

I submit to thy exalted leader. Tim, you ARE the reigning post whore, but a few . Drove the Z TWICE today. 90 degrees out, and beautiful! 80+ cars at the cruise in this morning, some beautiful stuff there.

Dude, you fixed my "I have to log back in every 5 minutes" problem with HybridZ, and it's a very nice change!

Thanks, Aux- I needed that

Thunder, my Z had a fuel problem like that, and it was a clogged fuel sock on the inlet pipe of the tank. I fixed that by adding another pickup tube with a new fuel sock (homemade). No more fuel starvation, except when the fuel level is low and I'm standing on the go-pedal. But I'm running EFI without a surge tank or EFI-baffled gas tank, so that's to be expected. I plan to fix that soon as well.

...to top me as the top "total posts" member .

Me Three And Pete, to answer your question about flow volume versus pressure, here's an example: A low pressure pump might be a better idea for a lift pump. I plan on using a really low pressure carb pump (like 3-5 psi) to lift to the surge tank. I hadn't thought of using that vapor tank, but I think mine leaks anyway . Cool idea though!

Gary, that's going to be a nice 280Z-06! BTW, I've seen your emails in the IZCC and 240Z-club lists for many years, and I must confess, never realized your relationship to a great past road racer. I just browsed around your website and was truly inspired! Carrying the legend forward seems like a very cathartic and exciting endeavor! The 70 Cuda is one of my favorites, and a college friend had an AAR that he thrashed on the streets - very cool car.

Mike - I still am concerned that those headers are too low. But I'm a worry-wort . BTW, what oil pan is that? That things looks low as well...

That makes sense - those headers are known to "hang low". How hard would it be to cut the tubes in the vertical section, remove some height, bend, and reweld? Pete

PLEASE don't put one of those leaning, crying brat midget dolls on that thing! What's with that anyway?

Cool - Progress!!!! I hope those headers do work - they ought to help the 383 breathe better than the 1-5/8" block huggers. Mike, have you considered a G-force T-5? I have to say I'd go that way if I were to do it again. (BTW, if that's a 2 piece seal 6.5" deep canton road race pan (6 doors, etc.), and you want to sell it, I'm very interested.)