pparaska

Grumpyvette, that cam (114681) actually closes the intake valve at 71 deg ABDC. I think you were looking at the exhaust valve opening, at 77 BBDC. Anyway, that means that the the effective stroke is more like 2.55". Since you convinced me to use that cam, I know the IVC by heart . Anyway, that works out to a 260 cubic inches of effective engine volume (on a .030" over 350 with 5.7" rods). I THINK I understand the rest of your post. Let me see... The cam Kevin used closes the Intake at a point where 80% of the volume of the cylinder is left. On a 350 with 5.7" rods, that's a IVC of about 61-62 deg ABDC. That's a pretty mild cam. One like this one: http://dab7.cranecams.com/SpecCard/DisplayCatalogCard.asp?PN=100042 It has a .050" duration of 210 degrees, a torque peak at about 2700 rpm, buy that bar chart in your post. I think what you're saying is that for a cam that closes the intake valve at BDC (per your last post), the hp will be around 100 hp, topping out near 1500 rpm. By leaving the valve opened until 77 (or 71) deg ABDC, you move the torque peak up to around 4500 rpm, and increase the max HP of the engine by 206% or 227% (with ram tuning of intake and exhaust) or over 300% according to the dyno plot. Is that last part what you are getting at? If so, all that's needed is to put up with less low end torque, use some gears, etc. and enjoy the 300+% hp peak.

http://body-kits.com/xenon/nissan-datsun_z_coupe_1970-1978.htm

zya - the bottom hose being cooler with the fan running all the time versus being warmer with it only running with the thermostat means to me that the fan running all the time is over cooling. I doubt that the fan running will block the air while moving. On the contrary, the stationary blades would be blocking. The fan is helping pull air through at a high rate. Someone mentioned that maybe the seal between the radiator support and the radiator wasn't good. I used that same radiator and the GT Mustang fan (same motor) but made sure I sealed the radiator to the support opening well. All air going through the radiator hole in the support has to go through my AC condensor and radiator core. I'd make sure that is all sealed up. Also, there are large holes on either side of the radiator that you could plug up as well. Are you sure you have a water pump that pumps in the correct direction? The LT1 has a reverse flow pump.

15psi - I know I'm probably on the edge of needing more line. I might go get some 1/2" AL line. Having trouble finding 1/2" steel.

Ugh, the search engine is NOT being helpful. Here's the story. I'm running a Holley 4D Pro-jection system (700 cfm). This may be replaced at some point with port injection. Anyway, I'm going to be running new lines, feed and return. The engine is in the 475-500 peak horsepower range. Obviously the 700cfm TB is a restriction, but the price was RIGHT! Someday I'll upgrade. I get conflicting advice on what fuel line sizes to run. Holley tech support says 3/8" feed and 5/16" return. Grape Ape Racing's tech page http://www.grapeaperacing.com/GrapeApeRacing/tech/fuelline.cfm says use 1/2" for anything over 350 hp, but that's for a carb. I have 25" rolls of 3/8" OD AL and steel line on hand. I notice that the Aluminum tubing wall thickness is about 1/32", so the ID of the 3/8" AL line is about 5/16". The steel 3/8" line is a good bit larger on the ID. I'm leaning towards 3/8" steel, but it's a pain to bend, etc. Will 3/8" AL be sufficient for 475-500 hp at ~15psi from the pump? Or will the ID increase of 3/8" steel over 3/8" AL be worth much? Or should I go with 1/2" AL or Steel? I'm not going with SS braided hose, too much money for fittings, etc.

Thanks! Actually, all the trim around the windows is stainless steel. I had it all powder coated. I imagine they sanded it or sand blasted it first.

Yep, we have put a bunch of people into power that turned out to be not-so-nice. The Shah of Iran had a secret police as well... It'll be interesting to see what happens in Afghanistan and then in Iraq after the war. Whenever we mess around with a third world country's governmental structure (even just taking out the present regime), the people who replace it never seem to be ideal - often far from it. Alas, it's not a perfect world.

Actually, since he's pulling the typical "oil" issue out and waving it, I feel his argument is NOT well thought out. He may have been somewhat articulate, but I think he's pulling the same old tired arguments out that don't fit. I agree with the former, but not the latter. Most of the people I've heard from or talked to that don't support the war give me either vapid or emotionally based reasons, and overlook the facts that make Saddam is so much like Hitler and Stalin. Most of the people I've heard from or talked to that do support the war give rational arguments. Not that there aren't protestors that have something rational to say or supporters that don't, but that has been my experience so far on the protestor/supporter thing. And I live in Liberal Maryland and watch the news casts and read a few papers (lately), so I get many points of view. I also don't align myself with either party. I also vote based on the issues and agenda of particular poliiticians. Sometimes I vote for the Democrat, sometimes the Republican. I agree - don't follow the party line, that just makes you a lemming.

Denny, I agree on the shake-the car thing - I learned that at a young age. I also throw something big under the car as well. I have a piece of a tree stump about 16" in diameter, 12" high that I use to throw under the frame as well. It'd not going to tip like a jack stand. A tire and wheel or maybe two stacked up works too. Basically, anything that can stop the car from crushing you WHEN (not if) the car falls off the jack stands. Also, I know this isn't always convenient or possible, but having someone hang out with you when you're under the car helps too. Although it this kids case, it probably wouldn't have mattered. Georgia, sorry to hear about you having to witness that.

Man, that's a clean 240Z! Looks Great! My Z used to be that color (110 Orange/Red). Brings back memories!

BTW, Jim Powers, that audio clip of the "little girl" in a radio interview that you posted the link to was great - heard that the other day. Another excellent example of someone whose emotions run their political views on things. Not a CLUE. Just the same old "war is bad" irrational passivism. I'm no warmonger, but Hitler, and Saddam are two examples of genocidal dictators that are only stopped by one thing - firepower. Or very extensive covert action - which would be my preference.

Professorrog, you might think you are young, but what you just wrote shows more mature and intelligent thought than many "older" people I know. Dave240Z, that video was fodder for my "clueless protestor" cannon. But I KNOW there must be protestors that DO have a clue. I'd LOVE to hear from them.

John, I think the more correct way to say it would be the it's about money and the WMD power that it can buy a rogue leader like Saddam. When people say it's about oil, they generally mean that they think the US is trying to take over Iraq to get it's oil. And I fully agree with the writer's sentiment. If he was a typical third world dictator, we wouldn't have to worry TOO much. But buying WMD isn't incredibly expensive either. A few Nukes, a small amount of chem/bio can do incredible harm. And there are people around the world willing to sell it. Saddam is just one.

Actually, I'm hoping to learn more from this thread. My mind is not closed. livewire wrote: Why not give it to them? It gets back to our (or anybody's) Intell communities gathering methods and sources. If we give everything we know about Iraq to an international organization like the UN security council, then we give away just about everything to do with how we obtain the Intell (which would soon be rendered useless) and/or the sources that get it for us. I'm not just repeating what Rumsfield said, that's true with ANY Intell topic. Much of what is kept classified is done not because the info itself is damaging, but because if it weren't kept classified, there'd be no more Intell that could be gathered - because your sources and methods would be inferred or directly compromised. So I disagree, for that reason. No, I don't think the UN should have ALL the Intell info the US has on Iraq. We gave them some. I don't know how much, but I'm sure that the "sources and methods" issue was in the minds of those who declassified the info. You would hope that they were able to give enough irrefutably damning info to help the inspectors actually find it. But that Intell may not exist...Intell is hardly ever all hard, irrefutable facts, while much of it is. That's why there are analysts who have to take what info they have and make assessments. What's scary about Blix is that some who have read some of the reports say that they are pretty damning about what was found, the amount of cooperation they got, etc. But Blix always seemed to put a nice spin on it to the Sec Council, in the favor of Saddam. I think politics had something to do with that. The pictures in the media of Blix standing with Chirac before the last briefing to the Sec Council with a BIG smile on his face as they were talking was quite unnerving. I question whether he was unbiased. Conjecture, etc. I know, but something smells fishy to me. Tim, I sincerely hope it's not about oil. If that were the case, the US would never live it down. That would be a horrible thing, not only for Bush and his administration, but for the US in general, politically, and otherwise. The adminstration has other countries (e.g., PRK (North Korea)) that are also worrisome to the US and world security. It's just that Iraq has a good bit of their attention at the moment. Be assured that possible threats from everywhere are being looked at constantly, by many countries. It's part of being prepared. Mikelly, I just read your post. For the FACTS behind this situation, I will always defer to Mike. He knows things I can't. That means he has more FACTS to base his views on, more than the average joe, more than the actors, musicians, directors, college students, etc. that make up the "protestors". They don't have the nearly as many FACTS to base their views upon, and to me they are an uniformed lot that are making alot of noise. I wish the media would not report on them. When it is reported, I just see numbers and slogans. No indepth REASONS why they are against what's going on with the coalition and Iraq. Many of the facts they need are in the media - they just are looking at it from an idealological point of view - war is bad. Well, not always. What if the US had LISTENED to people from Europe in the late 1930s and stomped Hitler's regime earlier? Many people would not have died, that's what. I see the attack on Saddam's regime (not on the Iraqi people, BTW) as the allied coalition doing the right thing BEFORE another Hitler type tried to do more inhumane harm, in his country, near it or abroad.

I think one of the reasons for Bush not being able to convince MORE of the international community is politics. The Russians, French, probably the Germans all have a stake in the Regime staying in power, or at least us not finding evidence of them aiding Saddam in obtaining things against the UN resolutions. Another would be that many people truly believe that oil is the reason we are there. I don't believe that. Another is that many believe that the US is at war with the Islamic religions. I don't believe that either. Another is that Bush comes across as arrogant, which is already a stereotype that the US has. His delivery doesn't help matters, IMO. I agree with you that more terrorism from Islamic terrorists. Small children watching the US bomb and invade a country with mostly Islamic people, and then being brain washed that the US was trying to kill people there because of their faith will produce more terrorists. That's why I think that Saddam's regime should have been taken out with only covert methods. Probably not possible, definitely not easy, but I think the terrorist aftermath in the years to come would be much less. BTW, as soon as this thread gets ugly, it's gone. We've been down this road before on HybridZ. I'm not sure the thread should even stay. The issue is that many come here to get away from controversy and talk about Z's. If you don't like the thread, the best advice is to just not read it. So if it's going to stay (I'm not the judge of that, BTW), let's keep it friendly and only speak rationally, not get emotional or personal. Just a reminder...

Denny, I just don't listen to these overpaid, CLUELESS, bleeding hearts. And I won't be buying any of their music or paying to see their movies, etc. They are clueless, because only a few actually have all the clues...let me reiterate your point... You are totally right about at least one thing - there's no way that the "artists" or any other person not hooked into the Intelligence community at very deep levels could know enough to say that Saddam's regime is NOT a threat to the West, Europe, Iraq's neighbors (remember Kuwait?), or even Iraq's people. Or that it should be ignored and left to fester. As unconnected citizens, we can't know those things, and we shouldn't. If we did, the methods and sources of our intelligence would disappear or be rendered much less useful.

Grumpy, Nice post! Are you saying it's o.k. to have the oil level in the pan (engine not running) almost up to the crank (almost touching the windage screen)?

Uh, guys, that was a joke! The 406 shortblock is sitting where the passenger seat is supposed to be bolted down in my Eclipse.

No thanks, I'll take AWD over both, for daily driving. Love my Eclipse GSX. Even with the new (additional) engine that Mike and I installed last night, even though it slowed the car down .

What I believe you are missing is the importance of the angles that the transmission shaft and differention pinion make with each other. Look at this: Notice that at each u-joint they note the angle between the driveshaft and the transmission, differential, etc. That isn't totally needed, because you need to make the shafts of the transmission and differential pinion parallel. You need a method of measuring the angle that these make with the horizontal direction. The easiest way is to get an angle-finder: You can get this from Jegs : http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=3254&prmenbr=361 as well as other places. When you get these two things parallel, the front and rear vertical u-joint angles will be the same. At that point, you could do the math as Jim Power's shows, because your drawing makes one assume that the transmission shaft and differential pinion APPEAR to be parallel, which is not neceassrily the case if you just bolt in a V8/tranny, but must be made so. At the same time, the distance between the imaginary paralle lines extending out of the transmission tail shaft centerline and the pinion centerline can be used to determine the u-joint angles as shown, but this is more directly measured with the angle finder. 1) To find out the angle of the pinion with the horizontal, place the angle finder on the face of the flange on the pinion of the differential. It's perpendicular to the pinion centerline, so the angle is easily measured with the angle finder. 2) To find out the angle of the transmission tail shaft with the horizontal, try finding a flat surface on the transmission or engine that is horizontal or vertical. The starter mounting pad is a good place, as is the front of the block (water pump mounting surfaces, timing cover gasket surface, oil pan rail on the block, etc.). Even the end of the tailshaft isn't a bad. The longer the surface the better though. The angles measured in (1) and (2) must be within a degree of each other, preferably the same. If you can mount something between the center of the pinion flange and the center of the tailshaft (support a straight edge between the two and use the angle finder on the straight edge) and measure the angle it makes with the horizontal, you can add or subtract it from the angle measured in (1) or (2) above and determine the u-joint angle. Adding or subtracting the angles will depend on which way things pitch front to rear. Typically, if the car is level, the transmission tail shaft and differential pinion will be going from higher to lower heights from the horizontal as you go from the front of the car to the rear. The driveshaft will typically be from lower to higher as you go for to aft. If that's the case, then you ADD the transmission tail shaft angle to the horizontal (1) from the angle you measured from the center of the tail shaft to the center of the pinion. That'll give the VERTICAL u-joint angle. The horizontal u-joint angle is difficult to measure. I have no tricks for that, other than trying to reference the horizontal distance of the center of the tailshaft and diff pinion centerlines to a known reference line that is parallel to the transmission tailshaft and diff pinion centerlines. Again, this assumes that these centerlines are parallel to each other.

Phantom, that sounds pretty cool. Any idea what the kit will cost after it's developed and offered to the public? Since the LS1 is lighter, moving it FWD a few inches to make the accessories clear the crossmember and rack doesn't sound that bad - especially if the T56 shifter comes out in a good place.

I installed mine into my Eclipse GSX. Trouble is the car is slower now. It feels like I just added a 300 lb passenger to the car...

Wouldn't it be easier (alignment of the groove with the cam gear) to just make a groove in the block instead? That way the groove would always be lined up with the the cam.

Mudge, remind me to never pick a fight with you! LOL!

I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for Grumpyvette's response to this one! This is going to be VERY educational, I have a feeling! 632ci! I couldn't stop smiling! Talk about a BEAST!