Kevin Shasteen

For posterity's sake, here is a site I came across while surfing the web. It lists a whole slew of Cd's for different veh's. http://www.teknett.com/pwp/drmayf/tbls.htm This site should help those who may have built a custom car & dont know the Cd of that car; now you can find a similar car's Cd & get somewhat close by mathing another car's Cd whose front end is somewhat similar. And No, this site doesnt list the Cd for our Z's...but we, HybridZ, has already listed the 1st genZ's Cd in other threads-so do a search for that or someone here should have that info readily available: just ask if you need it. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

FWIW, WISECO Pistons lists their aftermarket Piston Comp.Height for a VG30DETT to be 1.260" with a Pin Diameter of .866" or 22mm. KB Piston's list their Piston Comp.Ht. for their VG30E as 1.25" also and its Pin Diameter of .8259" Offset. Doesnt appear that anyone actually lists the VG30D, as in listing the VG30 w/a "D": yet, they list the VG30 in other ways. If you are working calculations for this engine it appears you could probably assume a Piston Comp.Ht of 1.250 to 1.260" and you should be safe. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Perhaps you should use the word "Flatulent" over fart; remember, this is a respectable JOINT we run here! Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

That is exactly the point I was making. The HP footprint (HP Column on a Dyno) will indicate which engine is best suited for your needs. If you put both the 200 HP diesel and a 2.0L on a Dyno you would see that their HP curves differ greatly...thus you would then know which engine is best suited for your needs. Obviously the HP footprint is not the only tool used in evaluating an engine: but, it is one of the most useful/valuable tools only equalled or superceded in by the TQ measurement. As far as the output of an engine, both HP & TQ being a deivative & your belief that neither HP nor TQ are a rule of thumb as to how quickly power can be applied....exactly what would you use to evaluate an engine and its ability to apply power? Gearing certainly plays a huge part but the gearing is at the end of the power application and the gearing coupling is only as efficient as its power source that created the force in the first place. An engine's force is measured in two ways...TQ & HP. The Vehicle's ability to utilize that force is where the gearing comes in to play. TQ is the rule of thumb in "How Much" work the engine is capable of actually doing, while the HP rating is the rule of thumb in "How Quickly" the engine can accomplish that work. The work gets done in real time: real time to an engine is engine RPM not Vehicle Speed. Vehicle Speed is determined by the power source thru its gear couplings. To say HP doesnt exist because it is a function of TQ is a misrepresentation of the facts; afterall, TQ is merely a function of Force...so does that mean that TQ doesnt really exist either? Certainly not-as both are merely measurements of Force in an engine and occur at different rpm's for different reasons based on the engine's ability to breath. Now juggle all this: the power source, the power sources ability to work quickly or slowly, its RPM range where peak power both TQ & HP...thru its gear couplings & you should be able to accomplish your power needs = Happy Camper Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

FWIW, When we speak of Tq & HP, are we not simply talking about Force? As to the 40# lbs weight held in someone's arms...since the weight doesnt move then are we doing any work(?)...the person holding the weight is working AKA: Expending Energy but the weight has not moved (accelerated). So we must first define our objective of what we will be using when we choose the word "Work". What is our objective-is it to merely expend energy, move a vehicle, or to move the vehicle as quickly as possible? What is our objective???? I believe the HP rating is a significant anomoly. I look at it in similar fashion to our Dynamic Compression Ratio -vs- Static Compression Ratio discussions. Just because the engine doesnt see compression until the IVC occurs doesnt mean that the Static Compression Ratio is an immaterial one: it just means the end user must have a basic understanding in how the Static Comp.Ratio affects the engine. HP to me does exist. It exhists in that it is a different measurement of Force: thus my agreement in that HP is a function of TQ...yet TQ is a function of Force. However, just because it is a function of Tq doesnt make Tq an island unto itself. Just because it is a different measurement of Tq doesnt mean that HP does not exhist nor does that mean that the process for HP is a misrepresentation of an engine's ability to do work. IMO the process for calculating HP and the HP rating itself is very real and a DIRECT SIGNATURE of the engine's potential in its abilty to work in the realm of time. Say you had a Catapillar Diesel engine straight out of a Semi-Tractor -vs- a BBC dragster engine: you had to chose between one of these two engine's for your 1/4 mile dragster, and all you went by was the HP rating: which one would your prefer? They both put out gobbs of Tq-but obviously the BBC dragster engine has a HP foot print that is more dragster friendly for the 1/4 mile. So, once again we are dancing all around "The Intent of the Engine" and the "Engine's Ability To Work" coupled w/the required gearing to appropriately meet our needs. So, in the example above, do I want a dragster whose engine puts out gobb's of Tq and one where I would have to shift thru 9 gears with a splitter on my shifter for each gear or do I want an engine where I can get away with a trans that merely shifts two to three times at the most? This is IMHO where the HP signature of an engine is best utlizied. IMHO, the HP rating-once understood, is a perfect process for calculating an engine's ability to work: as in how fast will that engine work -vs- how slowly does that engine work. The HP process is a measurement in the engine's ability to rev. In other words, what HP intensity do I want my engine to have & will that intensity fit in with the intent of the car? Take two individuals and their ability to do work. One person is 9 feet tall 360 lbs rock solid while the other person is 5'10" 180 lbs. Both people are given tasks for an obsticle course. In the beginning a 200 lbs boulder must be picked up & moved 20 feet down the path...from there they both will come upon an apple tree & are told to pick one bushel of apples. From there they move to the agility part of the course which makes up for 2/3's of the course. With this in mind-which person will be victorious? Obviously the 9 foot person will have no problem w/the 200 lbs rock nor the picking of apples from an apple tree due to their height. Yet, the shorter person will make up for the loss in "Power" once he makes it to the agility course due to their spryness & nimbleness. Now if the course were merely built to determine power then the 9 ft man would win yet if the course were built solely for quickness & nimbleness then obviously the shorter man would win. Both men are capable of "work" yet their abilities to do work differ: the same force is being measured on each man-yet their output would be different: one would be quicker and efficient in one field while not so quick nor efficient in the other. So, once you have established that a distinction between smaller men & larger men does exhist-would you not classify this distinction so that when a task exists and must be accomplished by someone-would you not use your newly classified list of choosing the "Right Man" for the job so that time (efficiency) is not wasted? Is this not what the HP rating does for us? HP is merely another tool for determining how quickly -vs- slowly an engine can work...and to what extent that quickness -vs- slowness affects your objective. My .02c's worth-HP is just another way of classifying an engine's ability to work and I would not say it doesnt exist simply because HP is a functioin of Tq. I may be wrong here but I enjoy the discussions nontheless: when we discuss we learn & that is very cool 8) Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Looks like you are building the 350 Chevy Never Built(?)...very cool indeed 8) Looking forward to hearing your upadated report! Is your cam a one off custom grind or is it one of their catalogue grinds? What is the Comp.Cam's part# listing of your cam? What's the Seat to Seat/Advertised Duration? Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

I've not come across any data on the VG30DE, but I've read and written down the Piston Comp.Height for the VG30E...which was 31.75mm or 1.25" As for the pin diam; who knows. This is the part that I hate about technical write ups on any engine; very rarely will the author give the Piston Comp.Ht nor the Block Deck Heights: and often times they wont even give the Con.Rod lengths Here is a simple request from me-going out to anyone who creates their own website representing their engine/car build....Please include the Piston Comp.Height & Block Deck Height on your engines! Thanks in advance 8) Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

and I was going to say the Northstar's starter was in the trunk...or possiblythe glovebox, DOH guess I missed it on that one Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Finally got to see you dyno run; excellant numbers BTW. I too am curious about the Cyl.Head's Intake/Exhaust Port cc's and your cam spec's. Notice on your dyno run where your BSFC is at its lowest number-this is where your engine will make its best MPG...as if we care about MPG w/an engine like that. As for your BMEP-when this number is at its highest your peak torque will begin to surface. I too agree that it is nice to see small CFM carbs on a well built engine. Anyone who doesnt understand what an engine needs-just look at the CFM column of Subdrml's dyno run. The smaller carb's aid in "Throttling" the engine-this has a better effect on airflow velocity and makes for a less "Peaky" engine: CUDO's to your engine builder. Also notice how the VE% changes w/engine speed. BMEP & BSFC are the two items that one isnt able to calculate w/paper theory calculations-it is something you have to get from R&D. I've tried & I've tried-and to no avail Thanks for posting your dyno run-it is ineresting to see a complete dyno run & the numbers that it generates. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Well, I had a detailed reply but the board would not allow me to enter it; so I will make this quick-dont feel like restating what I attempted earlier. SPIIRIT, You can not obtain a legit DCR by simple subtraction of 2.37 from your SCR. Your ratio is a measured unit divided into another measured unit to obtain a mathematical relationship between the two measured units. The purpose for utilizing the DCR and SCR as tools to building an engine is to allow the user to obtain somekind of an educated guess of cylinder pressures at cranking speeds. The DCR/SCR at cranking speeds tells the builder, once a moderate understanding is gained, what to expect at any other engine speed. Simple addition nor simple subtraction will gain you that understanding nor the correct ratio for that matter. The DCR is obtained, thru calculating the Compression Formula, based on your Cam's Duration...not from simply deducting a 2.37 from your SCR. Dont try to rationalize the math: no short cuts as JUNK IN = JUNK OUT. Remember that the DCR differential between a street engine and a dedicate racer is only .5: Street Engine 8.5 while a dedicated racer is 9.0. If you are simply deducting 2.37 then you have already scewed your .5 On a Small Block this difference could be anything from 15-30cc's on the Total Combustion Chamber side of the Compression Formula; with even larger Total Combustion Chamber cc's difference on a Big Block engine. As far as the 350 Chevy Should Have Built, they started w/a 400 .030 SBC, 327 SBC's stroke, 305 SBC's Cylinder Heads-by AFR which had 190cc Intake Ports, smaller 1.990 Intake Valves and a Dual Plane Intake Manifold along w/a mild 270 Roller Cam. I say mild Roller Cam because a Roller can use more Duration w/out the lope due to its "Roller" design-opens and closes the valve quicker. All this yielded a quicker Airflow Velocity at lower rpms...this equates to better cylinder filling which supplements the Cylinder Pressures. Add this to a piston that dwells at TDC longer due to a longer Rod-and your engine utilizes more of the Combution on the Combustion Stroke. It is the same principle of adding an Intercooler on a Turbo engine. The intercooler makes the air molecule denser-thus more efficient. Same thing is happening on the test engine in the article "350 Engine Chevy Should Have Build"...just on a smaller scale. Better cylinder filling equates to a denser charge, then allow your piston to dwell longer at TDC and your combustion during the combustion cycle will be better utilized for your rpm range-based on the cam duration of your cam profile. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Subdrml, The link you offered for viewing your dyno run is broken link: any idea why? I am definately interested in seeing your dyno data. Any idea why your link is not accessible? Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

You're not the only one: they are really sweet looking engines-and are extemely efficient. 8) Phantom and a few others are leading the way on the LS1 for the Z's; now all we need is for someone to lead the way on the DOHC engine swaps. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Subdrml, Dont apologize for not building the engine...who cares who built the engine as long as it is what you want and dependable relateive to your needs! Those are excellant numbers-good choice of eng.components. BTW: did your engine dyno include the BMEP & BSFC numbers? If it did could you post them on this thread; if possible-could you post them in 500rpm increments Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

I put this in a few other forums, so why not this one. The Dallas/Ft.Worth Auto Trader has a picture add for a V6TT JSPEC engine for sale. Engine has less than 40k miles on it & the $3500 advertized price includes ECU & 5spd trans. The shop is in the Austin Tx area. PH# 512-947-9017 Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

I posted this in the Alternate 6 forum & thought I should post here as well. There is an add in the Dallas/Fr.Worth Tx Auto Trader for a Nissan V6TT JSPEC engine for sale at an Austin Tex location. The engine is being advertised for $3500 and includes ECU, 5spd trans. Engine has less than 40k miles on it. Their Ph# 512-947-9017 Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

FWIW: The Dallas/Fr.Worth Auto Trader has an add in it for a Nissan V6TT "JSPEC" engine. Does "JSPEC" mean this is one of those Jap-Imported Engines? It is being advertised for $3500 and includes the ECU, 5spd trans. The engine has less than 40k miles. This yard is out of Austin Tx PH#512-947-9017 Hope you dont need to know Japanese to reprogram the ECU Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Phantom, What about the Heater/AC Vacuum Control System in the Dash. I noticed from the pictures that you got rid of the Magnet Valves on the Driver's Fender: what about the Heater/AC Vac.Cont.System-did you keep it as well? Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Phantom, I too have to cry out for a WRITE UP. Your car is incredible; congrats on having one nice ride. Seriously, when can we expect some kind of a write up on everything: eng, trans, diff....ESPECIALLY on the A/C system, what on the A/C system was kept and what on the A/C system was done away with! I like the fact that the A/C compressor was kept on the driver's side. The LS1 is definately the next step in the evolution of the V8Z: very well done 8) Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Its good to know they also make a Helical Cut gear trans; from the pictures of the G-Force in the write up...they are beefy as all get out: pretty impressive to say the least. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

If anyone wants this article on paper you can find it in this month's Muscle Car Review magazine-suppose to be posted up to Aug.12.03 on the newstands. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

This may seem like duplicate posts-but I figure this way we can keep the two G-Force threads somewhat close together. I'll just post here what I posted in the other G-Force thread; and that is that one of the Mustang Mag's did a special write up on the G-Force Trans. So if you are curious about the Trans go look thru the Mag, unfortunately I dont remember which one it was...it wasnt one of the Muscel Car mags-it was one of the dedicated modern Mustang Performance Mags. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

For anyone whose interested, one of the Go-Fast Mustang Mag's did a write up...with pictures, on the G-Force 5-speed trans. I would second guess anyone wanting to use that trans as a daily driver; if you find the magazine I'm talking about, unfortunately I dont remember which Mustang Mag it was, you will see that all the gears in the G-Force Trans are straight cut..this means a whole lot of whining at higher rpm's. If you like the whining your reverse makes when you're backing up a little faster than usual, then you can imagine what the sound of straight cut gears might sound like when going forward as reverse gears are usually straight cut gears as opposed to helical cut gears which are much quieter yet not as durable as the straight cut gears. Once you see the pictures of the gears and splines you will see why it would make a perfect a trans for a Drag Strip, Auto-X, or a Sat.Night special type car. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Datsun Dude, I said what I meant to say: that doesnt mean I am above being incorrect(?) : if I am incorrect then I would ask that you please show me where I am wrong-as I hate being incorrect in calculating auto math stuff. On one hand I believe you are correct in that what we read on a gauge is Absolute Pressure. Yet the engine doesnt "READ", so-in order for us to interpret what the engine sees we have to use a gauge. It is this gauge that is also effected by atmospheric pressure..so one must adjust their gauge reading in order to obtain the total absolute CRANKING pressure. If we are calculating Cyl.Press on paper then we multiply the Atmospheric Pressure x DCR^1.2 to get your absolute pressure. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you not confusing cranking pressure (absolute pressure), which is obtained by multiplying AP x DCR^1.2 paper calculation with Gauge Pressure taken from a gauge(?) and then confusing those two with Atmospheric Pressure. Atmospheric Pressure doesnt care what altitude you live in, it is determined by whatever Altitude you find yourself at: and the reading will slightly rise or fall dependent upon the moisture content of the air molecule at that altitude. The difference between Barometric Pressure & Atmospheric Pressure is in how they are obtained. They are both measuring the same phenomenon, which is air pressure, yet they are just going about it in a different manner. Barometric Pressure obtains its reading by use of Mercury...thus the "in.Hg" symbols, while Atmospheric Pressure obtains its readings as an actual "psi". It is your gauge reading where you should deduct your Atmospheric Pressure from your absolute pressure. I guess it depends on your approach in obtaining your psi reading. If you are calculating on paper the psi reading then you should use your Absolute Pressure psi reading obtained from your calculations. On the other hand, if your engine is already built and you are obtaining your psi readout from a gauge....then by all means you should deduct your 14.7 from your Cylinder Pressure calculations to match your gauge readings: or add your Atmospheric Pressure to your gauge to match your absolute pressure of your Cylinder Pressure calculations. If you, or anyone, wishes to know their average air pressure then you should locate a list of those average pressure readings. Go to Corky Bell's book, "Maximum Boost" and you will find one of these charts on page 28. Air pressure at 5000ft will be 24.90 in.Hg/2.036 = 12.23 psi Atmospheric Pressure. If you have a process for calculating Cyl.Press w/out using Atmospheric Pressure, I would like to see it...as I'm always looking forward to learning something knew in our search for Hi/Perf. 8) Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

John, I dont believe you can dismiss DCR nor SCR; afterall, every engine mfg that has ever existed has used them as tools to building their engines...THE ENGINEERS CREATED THE TOOLS out of neccessity for constructing their engines: it is just good-ole plain math. As Datsun Dude illuded: DCR &/or SCR are both Ratio's that measure volume of two related chambers while Cyl. Press. is a measurement of Pressure within that same cylinder. Alter anyone of the three: Cyl.Press, DCR, or SCR & you will have successfully effected the velocity of the airflow into the cylinders: and we still have not taken into consideration the efficiency or inefficiency of the Cyl.Head's Intake Ports. We have ratio's within ratio's and I believe this is the point of confusion in addressing any HiPo engine build. Yes, the Cylinder Pressure is our end objective but it is not an Island unto itself! There is a whole lot going on in an engine that leads up to Cyl.Press. Taking your argument that DCR & SCR doesnt exist, while we are at it, why dont we dismiss Cyl. Press & instead only embrace "Atmospheric Pressure"? Your answer should be, "That would be crazy-you cant dismiss Cyl.Pressure and only accept Atmoshperic Press." Likewise, you can not dismiss the DCR nor the SCR in designing performance into any engine. If your confusion lies in your thinking that DCR's & SCR's dont exist as pressures...then yes you are correct-because they are not pressures. Neither DCR nor SCR are pressures...they are only ratio's and because they are not pressures you can not measure them as such. They are a tool for measuring the relationship between the Cylinder Volume in the engine & the Combustion Chamber Volume in the cyl.heads. Both these Relationships (ratio's) coupled with the Cyl.Head's Intake Port's efficiency to flow air also have to be considered. These are tools for calculating the characteristics of the airflow velocity. Yet if you are merely rejecting DCR & SCR because you dont understand them...then you are making an incorrect assumption. Better yet, if we are going to dismiss how we measure the relationship between Cyl. Volume and Combustion Chamber Volume...then why dont we also dismiss Bore x Stroke-which yeilds the very Displacement of our engines? The "RATIO" of the relationship between the Cyl.Volume and Combustion Chamber of the Cyl.Heads CAN NOT be rejected if you plan on building any engine with any kind of expected output-they are requirements. Cyl. Press is a function of Atmoshperic Pressure acting hand in hand with your DCR. Your engine will take this relationship & then multiply it times the amount of cylinders in the very block we are going to use: this results in our total combined cylinder output: measured as Torque at the Flywheel. DCR is a function of the IVC (Intake Valve Closing) and is determined by the profile of the cam acting in conjuction with the Cyl.Volume in the engine block + Total Combustion Chamber of the Cyl.Heads on top of the engine. The intent of the engine determines what SCR is required for whatever level of performance you wish...AKA: Cyl.Press at a designed Engine Speed (RPM) coupled thru Gearing = Veh.Speed. Example: HP = .257 x CFM x #of Cyl's MEP = ((HP x 792,000) / (Displacement x RPM)) MEP = CRE^1.2 x AP DriveLine TQ = FWTQ x Trans.Gear x Diff.Gear x VE% ..from here you can play w/the RPM & MPH forulas to generate Veh.Speed. You can not dismiss any tools/principles/phenomenon that occurs in the entire process. You cant dismiss any of the steps between the first and last: all steps must be taken into consideration or all you have is a "HUGE GUESS". Guesses dont win races, unless everyone else around you is guessing also-then it is basically a crap shoot. One last thing: I also believe a lot of confusion about DCR is that there is this "Perfect DCR" for an engine. In reality there is no perfect IVC for any one engine, rather, there is only a perfect IVC for a particular expected "level of performance" at a given rpm. If you find that your Veh.Speed is mostly below this Peak Power RPM-then your IVC is by all means late, on the other hand-if you find your Veh.Spped mostly above this Peak Power RPM then your IVC is early. Either scenario equates to a mismatch in your engine components. So once again we are basically addressing, "What is the intent of the engine, where do you want your Peak RPM Power combined with your choince of Veh.Speed when that Peak RPM Power surfaces: and more importantly...how are you going to plan on taking that level of expected performance from paper to the machine & finally to the street/track? Cyl.Pressures: 1) 130 - 145psi = Typical Passenger Car 2) 150 - 180psi = High Perf. and or Sports Car 3) 160 - 210psi = Dedicated Race Car 4) 100 - 130psi = Turbo/Supercharged prior to boost Sorry for being so long winded...again Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)

Dont forget the top bracket that supports/displaces the pressure exerted downward when said clutche pedal is pushed toward the floor. If this under dash top clutch pedal bracket isnt utilized in the swap, the firewall will eventually rip at the clutch master cylinder mounting bolts due to the added stress placed upon it by the clutch pedal..which occurs because that bracket is missing-thus the displacement of the added pressure isnt absorbed elsewhere as it was designed from the factory. AND, of course if you are using an aftermarket clutch assembly-then just make sure it is likewise adequately supported from the top. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner)