slownrusty Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 OK just kiddin' you fun luvin' guys...and Tim can keep the crown (well for the moment anyway..big smile!). But for grins I went to the dyno today. I dyno'd the bone stock 50,000mile '83 280ZX Turbo 5sp that I recently bought. I wanted to see what a bone stock, super healthy car (140+ psi compression and less than 2% leak down across all 6) L28ET would pull down. This car still has the original Nissan factory belts from 1983 and even the all original 26year Nissan old air filter...even the cap and rotor had NEVER been replaced...no joke. So long story short at 6,000ft above sea level the car put down 120.2 whp and 138 wheel torque. I know you guys are thinking it seems low but there is approx a 30% loss for being this high up in Colorado (no oxygen!!) and another 15-20% loss for the drivetrain loss, so if you do the math the car is making the power it should..right around 180ish flywheel hp and 200ish flywheel torque. Surprisingly the car was making 6psi of boost. The car started to run lean on my last run as you can see from my AFRs and I am going to change the fuel pump tomorrow and then on Monday I am installing a full mandrel 3.5" system and up the boost to 8psi and head back to the dyno next week. I really enjoyed the session, lots of fun I must say. So you guys will see the relative jump in power from a bone stock car to the increases from a well designed custom exhaust combined with a couple more pounds of boost. Enjoy! Video will be added when Youtube approves it (uploaded already). Here is the YouTube Video..: Pics: The shop where I went Revolutions Performance: Yasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proxlamus© Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 so you go out and dyno a stock turbo... when you havent even gone out and dyno'd your own damn ZX you built for years and years? your killn me Yasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB26powered74zcar Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Do a pull before raising the boost, just so you will know what only the exhaust added... Sounds like you had a ball. I wish I could get to a dyno a do a pull or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 fast z Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 THe crown may have to be passed to me, here next week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughdogz Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 so you go out and dyno a stock turbo... when you havent even gone out and dyno'd your own damn ZX you built for years and years? your killn me Yasin Yeah, what's up with that?! :toetap05: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slownrusty Posted May 9, 2009 Author Share Posted May 9, 2009 so you go out and dyno a stock turbo... when you havent even gone out and dyno'd your own damn ZX you built for years and years? your killn me Yasin Ryan - Promise soon...the white car will ge to the dyno soooon! I am still in the throws os a new job and hope to make some progress on the Haltech install this weekend - x fingers. Do a pull before raising the boost, just so you will know what only the exhaust added... Sounds like you had a ball. I wish I could get to a dyno a do a pull or two. J - Yuppers had a ball, check the YouTubevideo link. Good suggestion on doing a pull with only the exhaust. THe crown may have to be passed to me, here next week Note fair...you are in a totally different league...us humble single cam 12valve guys..LOL! Yeah, what's up with that?! :toetap05: Working on it brother Hugh..working on it. Yasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozconnection Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 That's a lovely looking car you've got there! Why are you changing the fuel pump? Are 12:1 mixtures too lean at 6000rpm and WOT on a stock L28ET? If I may say, you're 10:1 mixtures that I saw are probably a little too rich but that's not your fault, that's the fuel curve plugged into the ECU by Nissan who probably felt that without intercooling that was the number to run... If you could lean it out a little, I'm curious as to how much more torque and power you'd get at those revs. Great car mate, Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowlerMonkey Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 LOL........Nissan's original parts on these cars last forever. My last 280zx turbo had original hoses that were still good in 2005. The belts went in 2001 and the gates replacements lasted about 1 year each time I replaced them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Baldwin Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Isn't hp loss more like 3% per 1000 ft? That'd be an 18% loss at 6000 ft. 120rwhp at 6000ft would "correct" to 146rwhp at sea level. WEAK! Damn, did anyone used to think these cars were even remotely fast?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Scott Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Isn't hp loss more like 3% per 1000 ft? That'd be an 18% loss at 6000 ft.120rwhp at 6000ft would "correct" to 146rwhp at sea level. WEAK! Damn, did anyone used to think these cars were even remotely fast?! Something about Standard Atmospheric Conditions. For the conversion to be accurate the temp needs to be around 38 degrees Altitude(feet) Pressure(in. Hg) Temp.(F°) Density(%) 6,000----------- 23.98 ------- 37.6----- 83.6. Since we race in warm weather, Density altitude is more like 7000, cool day, to hot summer days 10,000+. Plenty of info on the web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slownrusty Posted May 9, 2009 Author Share Posted May 9, 2009 That's a lovely looking car you've got there! Why are you changing the fuel pump? Are 12:1 mixtures too lean at 6000rpm and WOT on a stock L28ET? If I may say, you're 10:1 mixtures that I saw are probably a little too rich but that's not your fault, that's the fuel curve plugged into the ECU by Nissan who probably felt that without intercooling that was the number to run... If you could lean it out a little, I'm curious as to how much more torque and power you'd get at those revs. Great car mate, Cheers. Typically the Nissan ECU should go pig rich at wide open throttle and you can see the AFRs climbing after the rpms hit 5,000, so I am a little suspect of the fuel pump, the guys on the dyno were the ones tha made the observation. Thanks for the compliments on the car! LOL........Nissan's original parts on these cars last forever. My last 280zx turbo had original hoses that were still good in 2005. The belts went in 2001 and the gates replacements lasted about 1 year each time I replaced them. Yup true that my friend. Isn't hp loss more like 3% per 1000 ft? That'd be an 18% loss at 6000 ft.120rwhp at 6000ft would "correct" to 146rwhp at sea level. WEAK! Damn, did anyone used to think these cars were even remotely fast?! WEAK...? Slow down there bwoy. Ummm in 2009 I still think they are fast. BTW, the 280ZXT was one of the fastest production cars tested by Car and Driver in 1981, faster than the Porsche 928, every 911 (except the Turbo), Ferrari 308 and any Corvette at the time. Something about Standard Atmospheric Conditions. For the conversion to be accuratethe temp needs to be around 38 degrees Altitude(feet) Pressure(in. Hg) Temp.(F°) Density(%) 6,000----------- 23.98 ------- 37.6----- 83.6. Since we race in warm weather, Density altitude is more like 7000, cool day, to hot summer days 10,000+. Plenty of info on the web. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Baldwin Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 WEAK...? Slow down there bwoy. Ummm in 2009 I still think they are fast. BTW, the 280ZXT was one of the fastest production cars tested by Car and Driver in 1981, faster than the Porsche 928, every 911 (except the Turbo), Ferrari 308 and any Corvette at the time. 1981 = smack-dab in the middle of the era of SLOW cars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big-phil Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 good job. But I want the new zx motor on the dyno!! Oh and I'm going for the record also once my car gets BACK FROM THE PAINTER!!!! ARRRRRRRRRR:evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 fast z Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 No the rules of the crown can be ANY L series Nissan Block. Valve numbers have nothing to do with it. I will just keep uping the boost till I get to my 750+ RWHP. Motor should hold together at 40 PSI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 1981 = smack-dab in the middle of the era of SLOW cars! Agreed. Low compression and open chambers ruled the day in the mid 70's to mid 80's. Compare that 280ZXT to a newer Toyota Camry. According to zparts.com, Car and Driver came up with a best 0-60 time on a 280ZXT of 6.8, and a 1/4 mile of 15.2 at 89 mph.The 2007 V6 model does 0-60 in 6.1 and 1/4 in 14.6, with no lag, more weight, more creature comforts, crappier FWD layout, etc. Any car can be made fast and I can see arguments for using a 280ZXT as a starting platform. It is certainly lighter than most modern cars, for instance. That said, the 280ZXT is not a fast car in stock form in my opinion. Nice leakdown numbers though! That's a tight engine you've got there, so congrats on that! Looks like a good one to build on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 So the argument here is that in 28 years, automotive technology has advanced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Scott Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Fast is relative. Some would yawn at anything wimpier than 7 lb/hp ratio, or slower than 3 seconds to 60. Looks like a great find, Yasin. Would make a nice daily driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 So the argument here is that in 28 years, automotive technology has advanced? Do we need to remind you that if you go back a couple years from 81 and cars get faster too? That mid 70s to mid 80s era was not a good time for manufacturing performance cars. 71 Vette with 454: 0-60 in 5.3, 1/4 mile in 13.8 81 Vette with engine not worth noting: 0-60 in 7.7, 1/4 mile in 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Looking forwards to the results of the next dyno session Yashin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy 77zt Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 back in the day i owned a little shade tree repair shop .i specialized in foriegn sports cars because nobody in this area liked to work on them.did a lot of early 280 z cracked exhaust manifolds.they cracked because the gas back in those days (early 80's) had no injector cleaner in it and the exhaust manifolds would run red hot from lean running condition.with some tlc-like some cleaned and tested injectors-that dyno number would be better.i ran a stock 280zxt motor in my 280 for a long time.when it was swapped i installed new injectors and a lot of new parts .the car was a daily driver-at 15 psi boost with a good exhaust the car ran real strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.