pparaska

Tony, it's cool - I know you are an open minded engineer and understand that even low tech wood can be a good thing. But I also know that seeing wood in a high tech plane can be a bit "interesting". I was just jokin with ya. The nano-stuff I see in NASA tech briefs is getting really interesting - if/when this stuff starts shaking out at affordable levels, we are going to see some pretty amazing stuff!

Back in the 1960s, Novozhilov and Leknitski wrote very technical books about the use of engineered materials with fibers aligned in specific uni-directional layups that had tailored stiffness and strength which were better (per pound) than materials typically used for constructing things at the time. Today, we call them composite materials. The one they were actually talking about as far as a readily available example: plywood. "Don't hate the plywood!" LoL It's one of the first engineered "composite" materials (i.e., "matrix" (the glue), and "fibers" (as in wood fibers))

Thoughts on the Rattler? http://www.jegs.com/p/TCI/747913/10002/-1

Oh, so true. This is why we MUST get our kids out in the garage, under the shade tree, whatever to teach them how to do things and how NOT to be afraid to do things. Case in point, this Saturday I am going to be replacing the clutch on my 91 Galant VR-4. AWD adds a bit of fun. Plus, I've never done a FWD/AWD tranny pull. But money is very tight, so I will be doing this myself. My kids will be pulled out there to watch and help. My daughter is not a problem, but my son can't be bothered with it. Well, I will get him to do it, to see that we can do things ourselves. And have fun while doing it and learning! I've always been a bit fearless when it came to the mechanical stuff, and used to freak my dad out by rebuilding an engine at 16yrs old. But I studied the books many times before I started and dove in. That engine was always reliable (stock 327 SBC). I've had a lot of freak stuff go on with my cars over the years, some my fault, some just dumb luck. It reinforces that we must pick up the pieces and start again.

This was discussed a while ago by the admins/moderators - and no one was really liking anything more than about 150 tall, more like 120. And there was talk about limiting the number of lines of text to 2 or 3. This is getting attention again, as some members like to have their sig photos large enough to take up a good amount of real estate on the screen. Don't be surprised if the size recommendations get lowered a bit from what is in the rules - and a new rules change to reflect it. Like most things in life, if you look around and you are the only one or one of the very few doing something, it tends to set off an alarm in your head, if you are like most people. Many people then rethink what they are doing, considering if they are too-boldly drawing attention to themselves, and some will decide to tone themselves down a bit. Others like to be bold. Such is life. Enough philosphy from Pete for today! LoL!

Well to tell you the truth, there ARE guidelines about what the management thinks "big enough" is for signature pics. I suppose it just isn't enforce like a rule. We let the members do what they will, even if it's poking fun at the admins... until they break rules. But yeah, that photo is pretty big for a signature photo, IMO.

Thanks, Cathy. Here are a few more: 1973 Datsun 240Z Pete Paraska Clarksville, Maryland

It's really difficult to put into words the effect of seeing this car - Awesome just doesn't cut it!

Truly awesome work! Bravo - now let's get that thing running and some sound clips/vids!!!

I think anyone considering head studs on a SBC should read this: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=76947&highlight=head I went back to studs only after I went to a Dart (Sportsman) block - which has blind head bolt holes that don't go into the water jacket - i.e., no coolant leaks from studs.

The X-pipe makes the engine sound very even compared to an H-pipe, in my opinion. There's a full write-up of how I built it a 2.5" dual system with an X-pipe behind the transmission crossmember here: http://alteredz.com/exhaust.htm I bought the X-pipe from Dr. Gas, as I didn't trust that I could weld up a good one myself. Maybe if I had a TIG welder and was decent with one... If I were to do it again, I'd would build it with slip-joints instead of flanges. I used the large Dynomax Hemi Turbo mufflers to try to maximize muffler volume to get good flow and sound reduction. The exhaust is not too loud for most people's taste, and it has a deep sound. At above 2500rpm, it sounds very even, unlike many V8's - I believe the X-pipe is to thank for that. It sounds a bit like a muffled NASCAR engine at WOT and some rpm. I'd not do an H-pipe on any car as the only crossover pipe if there were space for the X-pipe. The idea of multiple X- or H-pipes is interesting though! Here's the system after I had it coated almost to the mufflers: (I'm not using those headers any longer - I've moved to Sanderson/JTR angle plug type block huggers with D-ports for the Canfield heads. I still would love to do a long tube header, but they would have to be custom as I don't like the way the street rod header that some have used hang so low.)

Personally, I like it better with it in the JTR position. Just because the engine was placed in the "Scarab" position by Brian Morrow, et al, in 1979 doesn't mean he'd do it that way today if he were still building Scarabs. As Mike Knell stated here before - the reason he came up with his JTR mouting position was to be able to use the T-5 transmission. I think it's particularly fitting that the people that installed the T-5 into this Scarab saw the light and used Mike's (JTR's) mounts and placed the drivetrain as JTR does now...They updated it - probably the way Brian Morrow would himself if he were to put a T-5 in the car... That thing is beautiful though. But I'm really partial to dark blue metallic/pearl paint on 240Zs

Grumpy, the way I've done this is to bring the piston for the cylinder in question to Top Dead Center and use the piston there to keep the valves from falling down into the cylinder. If you can lock the crank in that position (put in gear with a manual trans) it's safer. But putting the rope (or flexible plastic or rubber tubing) into the combustion chamber is even safer. I use the Moroso tool you show above. I suggest people just pay that money for that tool - it is many times better than the cheaper lever type that you see.

I've never seen that first drawing. It suspect it's for the original blocks from the first few years in the 1950s when there was actually no oil filter pad! I don't think it's indicative of what is in the later blocks, even the 327! If you didn't use the filter adapter bolted into the 327 block to mount your remote adapter to, you won't have the bypass that is shown in that drawing - that bypass is in the "adapter" that bolts into the block's filter pad area with 2 5/16" bolts. I'm betting you don't have that part in there and the part you show with the braided lines coming out of it doesn't have a bypass either. In other words, unless you have a bypass in any of the parts you show in the photos, you don't have a bypass.

I have never heard of the last one. My understanding is that there is no internal bypass in the block - unless you forget to put the cup plug in the passage that is under the rear main cap - then it will bypass all the time! I know it's there though - I checked several times! John, that's a beautiful install. The engineering, layout and execution are incredible. Get ready to be wanting more power though - that's why I have the 400 and you have the 327 now! LoL!

Grumpyvette - I use that exact compressor. I love it. This is how I use it: With the oil ring pack 1/8" above the deck of the block, install the tool over the piston and tighten the hose clamp to make it so that a lubed piston/ring set will be pretty snug with the piston - it'll get snug when it's the same size as the piston is below the oil ring pack. After you get the oil ring pack in the cylinder, tighten the hose clamp again, making it compress the second ring and get snug with the ring land below the second ring. Tap until the second ring is in the cylinder. The reason for tightening the clamp again is that the land below the second ring is a smaller diameter than the piston is below the oil ring, and you want the second ring compressed to the same diameter as the land below the second ring so that the ring has no chance of sticking out beyond it and catching on the deck of the block. Again, tighten the hose clamp on the compressor to compress the top ring more and get snug with the ring land under the top ring. Tap until the top ring is in. Same reason as above - the ring land below the top ring is a smaller diameter than the land below the second ring, so you need to tighten the compressor so that the top ring can't protrude outside of the top ring land. I also use a plastic rod bolt guide. Its a long u shaped thing that fits over the rod bolts and guides them around the crank pin. Works great. I'm betting that the tune cause excessive heat and the rings butted and jammed and ripped the lands loose.

My Z had a 327ci SBC in it, with 461 fuelie heads, pocket ported with the correct springs for a Comp Cams XS274S-10 cam (solid flat tappet), and I was running 9.7:1 compression. It had a Holley 300-36 dual plane intake and a 650 double pumper, hooker block hugger headers and 2.5" dual exhaust with X pipe and Dynomax Hemi SuperTurbo mufflers. The car had a very noticeable idle, could cruise at 2500rpm without loading up, HP peaked above 6000rpm (I shifted at 6700). It ran a 12.78@110.4 on 255/40-17 Toyo RA-1s, with a bunch of traction problems (I had to baby it off the line). So that performance and lope is possible. With a 350, that cam would be a bit more tame, and 10.0:1 or more would be better. Look into dynamic compression ratio for whatever engine your are building - this effects static compression ratio that you are going for and the cam you can use, and how far to advance/retard it.

David, any word on the time frame for R200 availability of the torvec?

Thanks for the kudos - my screen name here is actually very unoriginal - pparaska

An alternate point of view is that turning up the boost on an old L6 motor will give you headaches with blown head gaskets. A mild V8 will not give you those problems. But a well built L6 with turbo, etc. is a great setup too. You just need to be judicious with the boost control settings . There are plenty of steps to doing the V8 swap, and they can be challenging to some for sure. But there's a difference in the character of the car to consider also, with the V8 vs the turbo L6. Both can be lots of fun, but are different. Both can have problems also.

If your engine is installed as far forward as you say, the T-5 shifter will be very far forward of the stock opening, and you'd need to move the fuse box to another location, cut the hole much bigger for the shifter and put a long offset shifter handle on it, which would be custom. I advise against this whole-heartedly. If you want to use the T-5, I'd have to say the only thing I can recommend is making new mounts for the engine/trans from the JTR manual prints. It matters not that the TH350 is longer, even if it is - the shifter for the TH350 is cable driven and can be mounted anywhere. The shifter for the T-5 comes up out of the transmission case and you have to deal with that. If you search the threads here for JTR vs Scarab, you'll see that MikeJTR states that the initial reason for doing the mounts like he did in the manual for the swap was to be able to have the shifter for the T-5 come out of the stock shifter hole in the tunnel. Good luck!

I had a T-50 - the junk guy took it out of my basement when I dumped a bunch of old junk out of there.

It's cool to turn the knobs on the stim and watch the LEDs flicker and gage needles dance on the PC

THUNDERZ did exactly what we want people to do - search, find the most relevant thread they can on their topic, and add to that thread! I admit it's difficult finding the most relevant thread, but I definitely appreciate the effort! In fact, using an old relevant thread will make future searching easier on the next people that search on a particular topic like this one!!!! BRAVO, ThunderZ!!! Now, for some added tech content. One thing I've learned with bleeding hydraulic clutch stuff (mostly hydraulic release bearings), is that you should just take the bleeder out of the hose and let it gravity bleed first. If it needs help, then do the push-pedal-down-once thing as usual, but do it with the bleeder very loose or removed. Then when the pedal is down, return the bleeder to the hose end and snug it good as usual as the pedal goes up. I also found that sometimes it's good to push the pedal down quickly with the bleeder out to get the large air pockets in the HRBs to collect, break free of the surface (tension) of the innards of the HRB fluid reservoirs, etc. But only do this if you are not getting a firm pedal after a bunch of bleeding. But then be sure to let the air settle out for a while (not sure how long) and then go back to bleeding with the bleeder just slightly cracked whle the pedal is going down (and of course closed going up) to get any tiny bubbles created during the fast pedal bleeding out of the system. This method should not be needed for external/accessible slave cylinders, as you should be able to rap on that cylinder to get the bubbles to break free of the surface tension holding them to the innards of the slave cylinder, so that they go out the bleed port/screw.

Grumpyvette - thanks for the tips! As usual! I'm having this issue with my latest build also. I have a breather in one valve cover (going to the air cleaner, and it is not pushing oil into that area) and a PCV valve on the other cover. Sustained 6000rpm on the straights at VIR last week had oil coming out of the back of the intake/block interface on the passenger side. I do know that when I had to pop the intake at the 11th hour before leaving last week (Professional Products Crosswind, like the Edelbrock RPM Air Gap), that it completely separated from the Ultra Black RTV I used around all of the ports and water passages and the front and rear block rails (I was reusing Fel-Pro gaskets with blue sealing rings, so I used RTV everywhere oil could get to air, etc.) NOTHING stuck to the manifold. I had cleaned all surfaces with Berryman's carb cleaner. I will use Acetone next time. The manifold has a machined surface that catches the fingernail, so it's not smooth. I will use the dimple mark method on the block and remove all RTV and new gaskets this time. This problem stole one 30 minute track session from me as I tried to determine and fix the leak. As it turned out not much was actually leaking so I put it back on the track. I couldn't even measure the leaking amount on successive dipstick checks. But I want this FIXED!!!