pparaska

Nice photoshop'n! Oh, and don't forget this thread: http://www.hybridz.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18358

Check out ths site as well: http://drivetrain.com/driveline_angle_problem.html

Terry, I agree - any resistor that has to deal with high current (10+ amps) is going to be hot! One thing to consider is this: If the actual blades of two different fans are the same, the one that moves more air (which is what is needed to cool a radiator) will mean proportionally more torque. And for two electric motors that have the same efficiency and voltage, the one that provides more torque will draw proportionally more current (amps). So bragging about a fan's amperage is not all bravado. As long as it's not a fan with inefficient blades and motor. The Mustang GT fan has efficient forward swept contoured fan blades. The motor is efficient as well. So a good amount of the power used by the 12Volt, 35 amps sent to the fan is used to move air. I imagine a new car like the Volvo V70 has an efficient fan and motor design as well. So I wouldn't be too surprised or upset if it DOES pull more than 30 amps. I would see about finding out what size wiring, fuses and relay the Volvo V70 uses for this circuit. I used 8 gage wire for most of the run to the relay and fan ground, and 10 gage for short lengths. The Mustang uses a 60 amp fuse on the fan wiring (I put it between my ground wire and the common on the fan). I also used a fusible link (12 gage) on the +12 volt source before the 8 gage to the relays. I used two 30 amp VF4 relays in series for the high speed, and one 30 amp VF4 relay on the low speed. Over kill maybe, but none of the wiring or relays get warm when the fan is on high. The VF4 is a common automotive relay, like you get in any autoparts store. Also, if your wiring is too small (12 gage or less) for a fan that pulls 30+ amps, it will become hot and also add resistance to the total circuit. This will make the fan run slower than it should, and not cool as well. It might also make the fan draw more current, since it'll be running at a lower applied voltage (across the fan). BTW, yes, the alternator does bear the brunt of the load when the fan comes on. At idle, when the fan comes on high speed, my idle goes down 100 rpm due to the load. But the fan doesn't run except for when the car is sitting or going down the road when it's over 95F or when I turn on the A/C. The rest of the time the electric fan is off and no load is being put on the alternator and engine.

The answer why it matters is gearing - how well the car can use the torque at what rpm. I'm not sure where Grumpyvette was going with that, maybe it had to do with a long versus short stroke issue. This particular engine build (377) has a 4.165" bore, 3.5" stroke, 6" rod, 7cc valve relief pistons, 59.2cc heads, and anywhere from .025" to 0" (if it get's zero decked) of deck height. Quench and Static compression ratio: Deck height and gasket thickness can be used to raise or lower compression, but there's little room to play with, as you want to keep the quench height below .050", preferably from .035" to .045", from my reading. Gasket/Deck config. #1: So if the pistons are at the standard .025" down, with available gasket thicknesses from .021" on up, you can't do better than .046". Assuming a 4.200" gasket bore, the static compression ratio is 11.2:1. Gasket/Deck config. #2: If you have the block decked to give zero piston to deck height, you could use a .039" gasket, giving you a .039" quench height. Assuming a 4.200" gasket bore, the static compression ratio is 11.4:1 Gasket/Deck config. #3: Gaming it a bit, you could have the block decked to give a 0.10" piston to deck height, and use the .039" thick gasket to get a .049" quench height and a static compression ratio of 11.1:1. Let's use Gasket/Deck configs #1 and #3 in the following. The 12-676-4 Comp cam if installed at the recommended Int lobe CL of 106 (IVC @ 60 ABDC) gives an effective stroke of 2.82". The Crane 114681 cam, if installed at the recommended Int lobe CL of 111 (IVC@ 71 ABDC) gives an effective stroke of 2.55" For Gasket/Deck config. #1: (.025" deck height, .021", 4.200" bore SCE copper gasket, .046" quench height => 11.2:1 static compression ratio) With the 12-676-4 cam installed at 106 Int lobe CL, (IVC@60 ABDC) => DCR= 9.22:1 WAY TOO HIGH FOR PUMP GAS With the Crane 114681 cam installed at the recommended 111 Int lobe CL, (IVC@71 ABDC) => DCR= 8.44:1 - on the edge for 93 pump gas For Gasket/Deck config. #3: (.010" deck height, .039", 4.200" bore Fel-Pro gasket, .049" quench height => 11.1:1 static compression ratio) With the 12-676-4 cam installed at 106 Int lobe CL, (IVC@60 ABDC) => DCR= 9.15:1 WAY TOO HIGH FOR PUMP GAS With the Crane 114681 cam installed at the recommended 111 Int lobe CL, (IVC@71 ABDC) => DCR= 8.38:1 - on the edge for 93 pump gas Not much difference between the two Gasket/Deck configs. But you can see how that Crane 114681 cam helps bleed some of that excessive (for pump gas) static compression. Surprisingly, these too cams aren't as far apart as you might think (in overlap), seeing how much more duration the Crane 114681 has (important if exhaust restrictions are present and a carb is used). The Comp Cam 12-676-4 has 51 degrees of overlap, and the Crane has 60 degrees. That wider LSA on the Crane helps that matter quite a bit. Either Gasket/Deck config will be much better off on pump gas with the later Intake valve closing (IVC) of the Crane 114681.

Thanks Tim! You have mail!

Thanks, Mike! Hookers would have an oval sheetmetal "tag" spot welded to one of the pipes, that says something like "Competition Header", etc. I called to AFR and the tech guy said he thought 1-5/8" headers should match fine. BTW, the 1404 Fel-Pro gasket AFR calles out for the exhaust is referred to a "small race gasket": http://www.nwracing.com/catalog/category/Gaskets It's listed as having a 1.50" x 1.50" opening. I'm guessing that the block huggers are going to cover that a bit, maybe an 1/8" all the way around, seeing as the 1-5/8" is an outer pipe diameter. I don't know how they are reshaped and how much the weld intrudes. I might have to clean up the opening a bit. I'm thinking that I'm going to be o.k. with the Hooker block hugger headers, except that they will not let the engine breathe optimally at max rpms with 1-5/8" primaries and 2.5" collectors, but that's a known compromise I'm making. Either way, if anyone has a set of these headers that can make an imprint of the port and and bolt holes in relation to the port, that'd be appreciated.

Great post, grumpy! I see it's the old favorite 114681 Crane again Yeah, that'll bleed some compression off! And the overlap is not horrid either, with that 112 LSA

I guess I just don't care for the lines of either the 350Z, the Audi TT, or the New Beetle. To me if it's not long and voluptuous, it's not visually appealling. I'm not into this "make it shocking" styling at all. Bring back the GTO 250, BMW 507, BMW Z8, 240Z lines on these "new" sports cars and I'll be nicer when I speak of them. JMO.

Glad I could be of assistance, Tim yep, I have the 1-5/8" Hooker block huggers for the SB Chevy. As I find out, both the AFR 190 and 195 heads are supposed to use the Fel-Pro 1404 exhaust gasket, 1.50 x 1.50. So my headers will either be o.k. with both heads or not. The AFR 195 has a port more in line with a Vic JR intake, although the guy at AFR I talked to said they like the Dart single plane better. Oh well, I have the Vic JR.

Thanks for showing us this again, John. I remember when it was posted on this site years ago. I just an see it now - it'll take me 100 hours to pour through everything on that site! Oh... Check this out: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/data.htm The New Beetle, Audi TT, and 2000 911 all have LIFT at 150 MPH. The Ferarri 360 Modena has DOWNFORCE at 150 MPH. Which one would you want to be in at 150? I bet the 350Z has lift as well, seeing as it's so TT-like.

I'm looking for the port size. Better yet would be an impression of the header port with the bolt holes around it. Any port will do. You know, lay a piece of paper over the port opening of the header and get an impression of the opening and the bolt holes. The reason is I'm wondering how bad the mismatch will be with AFR 190 or 195 heads. Thanks for any assistance.

YOu have that right, but having the quench distance (top of piston to top of head gasket and therefore the flat part of the head above the piston) is important to keep between .035 and .050". So it's a balancing act between deck height, gasket thickness, cyl head volume and piston dish/dome/valve-notch volume to give a reasonable compression ratio (static) and deck height and gasket thickness to give good quench.

Welcome! The 3.1L engine can be done more cheaply these days - see the L6 forum for HP capability. But it's still only 3.1L, and if Normally Aspirated, it'll have to be built fairly radical to get anything near 300 HP, if that. It'll be fun, no doubt, but maybe not too streetable to get to a near 300 HP mark. Turbocharging the L6 280Z motor would be money better spent, IMO. Many here like the JTR method/kit. I'd buy the book no matter which way you go for V8 installation. The R200 rear will hold up to most any streetable V8. Engine choices for the V8 Chevy small block go from the old school 60s 283 to a 90s LT1 or even LS1/6. JTR covers the earlier engines, not the LS1/6. Try the search engine and you'll find tons of info. But read the JTR book - it's a great starting point to decide what to do with a V8 install.

Is it assembled yet? IF not, you may want to consider zero decking the block, or at least having it decked to about .010" piston deck height, so that a .039" gasket would give a .049" quench height. Zero decking isn't cheap. It cost about $100 to zero deck my block. It's a good bit of metal to remove.

The Rover motor has gone far beyond the original Buick 215 that it was based on. Check the web. There are now performance parts out for this V8.

We'll need to know what the piston to deck height is to figure the compression and the quench distance. The problem with the 400 is that all the gaskets I've been able to find are .039" thick or more. With the standard .025" piston to deck clearance (down in the block), that means a total quench distance to the head of .064" or more, which isn't good for detonation resistance, etc. That's why I had my 406 zero decked (near zero deck height on all pistons). Then the standard .039" gasket gets you in the middle of the .035" to .050" desired quench height.

Congrats on getting it almost there! BTW, what's your lift charge I think I have that weekend free.

Joe, I have no idea what you're talking about BTW, it's NEVER finished. Well if you total it. I guess it is. The time frame, start to finish, was 11 years. But many months went by in that time when I didn't do anything on it. Lot's of Start-Stop.

Yep - I have the Edelbrock 2 pc AL timing cover . I'll check with the guy doing my short block, but I have a feeling that if that Crane 114681 solid flat tappet cam was used to clearance the rods, a roller won't clear. I agree on the merit's of a roller - and thanks for the tips on cheaper versions and the possible use of my solid flat tappet valve springs. I have CC Pro Magnum 1.52:1 roller rockers now. Not looking to spend more money there either, especially if it's just 5-10 hp, like I've heard.

Thanks! It's a simple part, but it is probably somewhat of a custom deal. I'd be concerned that it'd be a problem getting it to fit in different cars. The tunnel changes dimensions as you move from forward to rear, and it's height of mounting in the tunnel depends on transmission choice and driveshaft diameter. Kind of a custom piece. Pretty easy to make though.

Love the way the fat old-school centerlines and fat tires fill out the flares! Cool scoop and I like your spoiler choice . Looks very mean and aggressive!

Mike, no doubt a custom cam would be optimal. And I'm beginning to think that a tighter LSA and single pattern would be better. Dual pattern eats into the overlap budget too much, especially when you have a tight LSA. Oh well, nothing on this build/exhaust is really optimized. Lots of compromises. At least I have a few cams to slide in there to play around with.

Mike, like I said on the phone, I like it. A high quality weld in that depressed area where the adapter fits on the circular part of the axle should do well. The radius is fairly large, so a 6+ inch weld length should hold a good bit of torque. I wonder if you could key it together as well, in about 4 places around the circumference. Probably wouldn't matter though, as the weld would hold all the shear. The adapter looks thick enough to have recesses in the inboard side to hold bolt heads. That way you could have the unthreaded portion of the bolts in the adapter as well as the companion flange. But the bolts would be present during the welding operation, so they'd have to be protected then. Cool!

Another way: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/pparaska/drivelinemods.htm#Driveshaft_Loop There's a dimensioned sketch there also: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/pparaska/image/drivelinemods/loopsketch96.gif This tucks up into the tunnel to give alot of room for exhaust routing. Doubler plates on the tunnel sheet metal and bolts that screw in from the interior of the car to the mount itself. Bottom half is removable - top half never needs to come out once it's in.

Agreed! Great job!