rudypoochris

A lot of people do a lot of swaps for a lot of different reasons... There is always something better, so why don't we all do that? I personally would take an Essex over a VG, maybe even a VQ, but that is just my personal preference.

Interesting! So which is feeding which? I would think the supercharger feeding the Eaton would be the best setup... right? Are you running an inter cooler after each stage?

I know between the 240z and the 280z the strut OD changed. I am not sure if the springs are compatible. I would try asking the people you are purchasing these springs from.

Are you talking about stock springs and shocks? Or are you talking about which strut should you use 240z vs. 280z? Just trying to understand better. You might want the 280z stub axles since they are stronger, as for reusing stock components... I would personally just use after market stuff unless you know the shocks and springs are fresh. Not sure if that was your question...

Finished! Had to adjust the bracket for the spot caliper by ~1/16" but it is good now. I guess I will just keep these drawings around for a while until I can determine if a pinion mount brake setup is possible. If it is possible I would probably just go that route. I might take these down to the machine shop and ask them what I need to do to get it onto the CNC.

Got the superlite in... I set the width of the caliper internal to .84" (for a .81" disk). Looks like the measurements were spot on first try!! Amazing... I am working on the spot caliper now.

They do. It has a smaller pad though that most likely also has less selection. More importantly I don't think the balance of the brake system would work well with that setup. It is a single 1.34" piston. The fronts (at least in my setup) are 4 times 1.75". I really like the pinion mount idea better though and will make that my primary focus once I get that suspension/rear back together.

Good point. I don't think one should be relying on normal brakes anyway on an icy hill. I run an LSD though... but safety first! My old roommate who has a bit of experience with this 3d cad/cam stuff says it shouldn't be too hard to have a CNC machine make, which is great news.

Heres a quick update. I got to split, but basically it looks like a CNC nightmare... but I am sure it can be optimized and all that stuff. When I get back I will enter the caliper specs into the solid modeling program to double check clearances. This is what I got so far... The Wilwood caliper is a bit annoying because it requires the mount to reach around the bulk of the clamper. I also need to worry about brake line cable support.

Megasquirt scares me... Are you using the EEC-IV adapter board or going straight for a re-wire. Eventually I want to megasquirt my 5.0L so after that I am sure I will be much more receptive.

Wow! I am a big fan of this engine. Some how I missed out on all this good info. Thanks for the help Krayz. Couple of questions though... Is the M90 large enough to efficiently power the 4.2? Why are the 99-04 Mustang blocks more desirable? Higher or lower compression? If higher... is that really a good thing? I didn't know 5.0L transmissions and mounts interchange... That would indicate that possibly the Alsil mount could place this engine under someones hood quite easily. Furthermore... do you know if this block shares weaknesses with the 5.0L HO (like a block that splits ~500hp)? Also another plus for this swap... I have an inkling that tweecer.com sells a chip for this ECU... means basic setup + programmable ECU for cheap. EDIT: Doesn't look like there is a tweecer for the T-Bird S/C engine, what a let down.

Based off photos only it looks like there might be room to pinion mount a Wilwood spot caliper on a ~5"-6" disk on the drivers side of the R200. I would need to reassemble my rear before I could even proceed or evaluate that idea. It has alot of perks over mounting two calipers at the rear disks: 1. Less weight 2. Less cost 3. Weight is farther forward That being said, it may be entirely impossible. So, I have started work on solid modeling a setup that uses a Wilwood spot caliper on each side... Basically the bracket that is used to mount standard 3.5" Wilwood 4-Piston units would be replaced with a single bracket that mounts the 4-pistons and a spot caliper. The spot caliper would be mounted at the bottom of the disk most likely depending on cable clearance. So far all I have is a dimensionally accurate replica of one of the strut mounting faces and the rotor in relation to that mounting face. It is a start though... Eventually I hope to have a bracket made on the UCD CNC machines that will let me use an E-Brake.

For the longest time I heard about this magazine, but never got into it or researched much. Great way to reach out! You might have yourself a new subscriber!

Depends how much money you have. I personally wouldn't compromise on something so critical, when a 350 can be had so easily... get your friend to buy you a block! Isn't it more than just the displacement lost? I am no Chevy expert, but I believe the main difference is a smaller bore, which in turn means smaller valves.

Ya, the more I think about it the more BS it seems. If they even delivered a 5% bonus in economy, power, or torque... wouldn't the OEM's be jumping on them? If they do anything they claim, they will make it into the new stuff anyway.

Darn. I thought I was clever and searched well! Sorry for the repost!

Anyone use these Pulstar spark plugs: http://www.pulstarplug.com/ I am inclined to think it is BS right from the get go since they didn't first appear on OEM applications, and because naturally consumable engine products are surrounded by junk. Just wondering if any of you guys have used them? They are ~$25 a plug so I do not plan on getting within 10 ft. of them unless they can make my 240z grow wings and fly.

I clearly can see how the Supras value was hyped... It performed about equally, a bit better, than a 300zx twin turbo. Yet they are still $25k? You can get a 300zx TT for $5k easy. Yes, less were made, but they aren't exactly an exotic car. The fact that they are so expensive is because so many fans like them despite there being easily obtainable equivalent performers from the same era that look just as good (if not better in my opinion). Then along comes along the C5 which is clearly a better performer and still costs considerably less. What about Porsche 911 from the same era selling for ~$30,000. Those are PORSCHES!!! I think it is actually quite amazing how much the Supra is indeed hyped up when you look at its specifications.

I am pretty sure their weight is wrong... 468lbs for LS1 w/ T-56. Doubtful... That means the LS1 weighs at a maximum 350lbs. Thats just not true. http://www.vorshlag.com/documents/LS1_weight.jpg?osCsid=247b2dd45ee0e1f6ed5cf862cfbb6424 LS1, total dressed engine mass (dry) 497lb for a T-56 setup... Lightest T-56 is 108lbs according to http://www.ttcautomotive.com I could understand the weight being a little off, but they are saying the engine plus trans weighs less than the engine does dry according to Chevrolet.

I doubt it will be 128lbs lighter... With X-Member the KA24DE "drivetrain" weighs 540lb according to: http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/tech/0309scc_engine_swap_nissan_240sx/index.html On the scale, here is a 370lb recording w/o flywheel/clutch. http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/299879 Chevrolet claimed the LS1/LS6 was ~457lb with automatic setup (flexplate), ~497lb with manual setup (flywheel... clutch included?). You may lose weight if you eliminate the cross-member or something of the sort, but straight swap, probably not. At the same time though... your picking up 150hp minimum...

I personally think that this will be an awesome car, BUT, I really wish they would focus more on reducing weight and stringing some extra ponies out of the LS7. Maybe by using a 32 valve setup as they did on the early 90's ZR-1. Alas I am far from Corvette's target audience... I wonder if the buyers feel the same way?

+1 on the car fans vs. brand fans. I still can't wait for the car to come out though. The fact of the matter is that it hasn't though. The amount of speculation and estimates written as truths is staggering. Worries me.

Hey thats bigger than my 1891 Argentine!

I think the American companies just found it more economical to expand the displacement rather than change valve designs. Nothing wrong with that. Its cheaper and easier to upgrade. If they are making 400-500 hp right now, what benefit are they going to see by going DOHC? Broader power band probably, but is it really worth it? I personally appreciate the low weight and compact dimensions of the OHV setups... not that I wouldn't consider DOHC in a heart beat. Just saying that neither route is better for a production car, they are just different. Also, remember the Corvette ZR-1's in the early 1990's... Aluminum block SBC with DOHC heads. Its not that the technology isn't there... they just choose not to use it, which makes sense considering it isn't exactly necessary. I understand why one would go either way. EDIT: Also I think it is interesting to note that they refer to the 3.6L Cadillac V6 as "High Feature". That acknowledges the fact that the DOHC setup is indeed a feature. Not knocking it at all, it IS superior for power production. It is not necessary though, when you are not displacement limited. Thus it is a feature, an option.

If so, care to comment on how they compare to US brands like Edlebrock, AFR, or is it pretty much all the same stuff? http://www.chiheads.com/