Captain Obvious

Oh yeah. One other thing... CHECK THE CONDITION OF YOUR CAM SPRAY BARS!! After studying the original factory spray bar design, I believe they can be placed into one of two categories: 1) Those which have already failed, or 2) Those which are very close to failing. CHECK THE CONDITION OF YOUR CAM SPRAY BARS!!

Steve, good question. The short answer is "as tight as I could make it and still allow the tubes to slide in and out". I was concerned about vibration and play on that center mounting bracket. I thought about using some sort of flexible vibration absorbing "bushing" at that center support. Something like rubber grommets or a piece of fuel hose tubing pressed onto the tube ends that fit into a snug hole in the center bracket. However, I was worried that anything electrometric I used there would eventually fail and fall apart. And once it failed, not only would you have a very sloppy fit, but you would also have rubber chunks loose up in the valve train area. In the end, I decided that a "no play" all metal slip fit would be the best option. I figured that if there was no play, then there could be no velocity, and hence, no energy to cause wear of the surfaces. So I drilled those holes undersized and then carefully reamed them to fit the tube ends. The intention was that there would be no lateral movement but still allow for axial growth. I don't know how long it will last, but I can guarantee that it will last a whole lot longer than the :stupid: stock design!

So simple it's genius! Thanks guys! :classic:

When did they switch to the internally oiled cam and ditch the oil spray bar? I would like to know if my 280 is internal or spray bar, and I would rather not pull the valve cover right now. Is there a head number or build date? And yes, I know... There's no way to know what any previous owner did.

Thanks! I'm very pleased with the way it turned out. I was a little apprehensive about tooting my own horn, but I'm just so durn happy with the results! I tried to keep the geometry of the tubes the same as stock. To that end, the tubes are the same distance from the cam as stock. The tubes are the same height up the journals as stock, the angle that the holes spray is the same slightly downward direction as stock, and to your question... No, I did not enlarge the holes. In other words, my new bar functions the way the original one was supposed to, but probably never did. As for availability for sale, I hadn't thought about it. At the amount of time I put into the first one, there's no way anyone would want to buy them! But now that the learning curve is over and the design bugs have been worked out, the second one should take a whole lot less time, right? Haha. Maybe I need to make a second one and see how long it takes now that I sorta know what I'm doing?

Yeah, I'm sure there are other things that could cause the light to come on and I've done no investigation at all at this point. I bought the car, drove it a couple hours home, and parked it in the garage. The brakes felt fine the entire trip. The light came on when I pulled the parking brake when I stopped for gas and then never went back off when I was done. I wiggled the parking brake handle and switch there on the trans tunnel, but other than that, I've done nothing. I was just figuring that if everyone else's relay was going bad and causing this problem, then that's probably what's wrong with mine.

I pulled my valve cover to adjust my valves and discovered that my oil spray bar was in bad shape. The distribution blocks were bent a little and weren't sealing against the cam journals and the short tubes at front and rear were no longer parallel to the cam. Did a little searching and discovered that this is a very common problem. Clogged, leaking, bent, falling apart. After studying the factory design, I believe it is a misapplication of materials. The steel tubes are "soldered" into the aluminum distribution blocks at one end, and are brazed to the steel center mounting bracket at the middle. Not only does solder not stick to aluminum in the first place, but the thermal expansion rates of the steel tubes is different than the aluminum head that it's bolted to. This means that as the head grows in length when heated, the original tubes must pull out of the aluminum distribution blocks. And when the head shrinks back to room temperature length, the tubes will try to squeeze themselves back into the blocks, but cannot. This creates pressure pushing the end mounting blocks away from the center mounting point resulting in all of the stress and strain problems that occur with the original spray bar. My answer is to redesign the bar with two major improvements: 1) Seal the tubes to the distribution block in a means compatible with the materials used. In other words, soldering steel tubes to an aluminum block is not the answer. 2) There has to be some "give" in the system somewhere to account for the differences in thermal expansion of the materials used. Since the two end mounting points must be fixed, then the CENTER mounting point has to float in order to account for expansion and contraction length of the head. This is opposite of what the factory did. I also wanted to retain the same geometry of the tube with respect to the cam which means a straight bar down the side of the cam would not work because it would be farther away from the cam than the original design. My redesign project turned out very well and I figure that other Z owners might like to see what I did to fix the problems. Not taking anything away from the other solutions that are out there, but here's what I did: Pulled the tubes out of the aluminum distribution blocks and cut them free from the center support bracket with a hacksaw: Took some "billet" aluminum bar, cut off some sections, and machined them into oil distribution blocks including threaded holes where the tubes are inserted. Made some lids to seal off the oil distribution blocks and cut some gaskets to go between: Machined some threaded brass collars for the tubes and soldered them to the ends of the tubes. Solder doesn't stick to aluminum, but it sticks fine to brass and steel: Made some brass plugs for two ends of the short tubes and soldered them into place: Made a new center bracket with tight slip fit holes to accept the inboard ends of the tubes. This slip fit allows the non threaded ends of the tubes to float and account for the changes in length as things change temperature: Cut some gaskets to seal against the cam journals: New design done and ready to be installed on the engine: Once I was all done, I wanted to check the bar to make sure everything worked properly, so I pulled my spark plugs and coil wire and cranked the motor over (props to Blue for the idea) by shorting the starter solenoid terminal to the battery connection on the starter. Not the best pic because I'm doing the shorting with one hand and trying to work the camera with the other, but you can see streams of oil shooting out of the bar onto the cam lobes. I was surprised how far the oil shot out, even at cranking speed: Much better than the original design. Oil doesn't leak out anywhere you don't want it to, and it shouldn't have the same mismatched thermal issues of the stock bar. And I used "billet" aluminum, so it's got to be good, right? I've also got a bunch of other pics, so if there's a different angle that you would like to see or any questions about the project, just let me know.

My new 280 does this... Brake warning lamp stays on all the time. I'm assuming this is a common issue and this relay is where I should start my investigation?

I've also got an advantage with the flat tops in that I've got the float bowl sight glass on the side of the carbs. I checked the bowl level yesterday before I tried to start the car and it was down a little bit. Evaporation over the past two weeks I assume. Not a whole bunch.. A WAG would be 10% down? If I shut it off while full hot in the middle of Death Valley one summer afternoon and then came back two weeks later and tried to start it, I could believe that my bowls could be completely dry. But parked (in a garage), even in the middle of summer, in the Philadelphia area that was not the case. I don't think it's simply the flat tops either. I also ran round tops for a few weeks last summer, and had about the same starting performance. Only time I ever really had to crank the car even remotely as long as 30 seconds was when I just put the carbs on and the bowls were bone dry. I think a more objective test would be to pull the tube between the bowl and the nozzle before he tries to start it and measures the amount of fuel that comes out. If the volume of fuel that comes out is close to what should be in there, then the problem is somewhere else. Spraying a bunch of fuel into the carb intake before you try to start it can mask a whole bunch of other potential root causes. Checking the bowl level would rule out just the bowl level. So what I'm going to do is count my lucky stars on just how easily and readily my car starts. Maybe I'm the anomaly?

After I posted that question to you about current availability, I reread that you mentioned they were analog IC's. Unless they were some easily recognizable regulator or amp, I would consider the possibility very remote that there was a current drop in. Thanks for confirmation about counting the spark pulses. With only a relative reference, I couldn't think of any other way it could have possibly worked, but I had to ask. If I were designing such a system, I would hiccup every now and then on purpose, say every million pulses or so, and change which spark event I would spray on. You know... Wake up synchronized to 2&4, but after a million sprays, I would purposely drop one pulse, after which I would be synchronized to 3&6. Then after another million sprays I would drop another pulse and end up synchronized to 1&3. You would gradually roll around and end up spraying the same average number of times on each pair. Probably doesn't matter, but just to even things up. That's just me. Of course, that kind of thing is a lot easier to do with programmable devices.

Fine. Then I'm not stumped. I just don't have any suggestions at this time. If you were anywhere near me, I'd loan you another pair carbs to try. Sure, it would be a shotgun approach, but it would help narrow the field so much that it would be worth it.

Thanks for the info guys. Brubaker, sorry I couldn't help you with your trim question though.

cygnusx1, That's a great bottom line summary you posted above. I'm beaming with confidence in my 280 now! C'mon spring!!

Yeah, that's what's really got me stumped. I had the exact same thing but it was because I was lean at midrange due to the carb mods I made and the needles I was running. I switched to the N-27's and it went away. And you're running a richer needle than I am on my 260. Sounds like you're lean, but you shouldn't be. Wish I had your silver bullet!

I'm missing that chrome trim strip completely. Car came to me that way. Can you put it in after the window has been installed, or does it have to go in before you place the window into the frame? (I, thankfully, know nothing about glass.) Also, if you don't mind... What did you pay for the entire chrome trim? I don't particularly love the strip, but it looks goofy without it. I would have preferred a window seal that had no groove for the strip at all.

Now that you mention it, I don't usually actually time my cranking time. I was guessing with my ten second estimate. So out of curiosity, I timed it this afternoon. Today was the first start in about two weeks: First cold start - about four seconds. Warm restarts - Less than one second. Granted, I'm running the flat top SU's which supposedly aren't as good as the round tops, but I'm content. Even thirty seconds of straight cranking without so much as a "pop" would seem like an eternity to me. I'd be looking for a problem!

It's not the fuel pumps fault. You guys are missing my point... When you shut the car off, the carb bowls are full to the proper level. When you go to restart the car a couple days later, the bowls should still be full to the proper level. You don't need ANY fuel pump when you first start the car because the bowls are already full! You should not HAVE to pull fuel from the tank. And it's not like that fuel in the bowls gets sucked in all that quickly. How do I know this? Because there has been occasion where I want to pull the carbs off my car and I want them to be as empty as possible before I pull them. Just less mess, that's all. So I disconnect and plug the fuel input lines to the carbs and then start the engine. It will idle for a good minute or so before it starts to sputter from fuel starvation. In other words, when you first start your car, you should have about a minutes worth of fuel already in the carbs. It should be able to run for quite a while with NO fuel pump before it runs dry. So, if your bowl levels are already low, or if you're percolating the fuel out of the bowls on hot shut-off, or if you've got very low compression, or a weak spark, or your carbs aren't functioning properly, or, or, or... The point is that the underlying problem is not the fuel pump.

Before you get all wrapped up in fuel pumps trying to fix this issue, I will point out that it should not be that difficult to start the car after sitting for just a few days. I can let my 260Z sit for two weeks and it will start within the first ten seconds. Later that same day once the engine has been "freshly started", it will fire off within the first two seconds, so I do see a reduction in cranking. But having to crank for a minute or so? Come on! Requiring 60 seconds of cranking to get the car to start after sitting for two or three days? That's a problem. And not the kind of problem that a fuel pump should be used to fix. The only problem a fuel pump "could" fix is if your float bowls are going dry over a couple days of sitting... And if that's the problem, then you better spend some time trying to figure why your float bowls are going dry after sitting just a couple of days.

Haha! Read? Who said anything about reading? I figured it would take me 1000 hrs to reverse engineer the whole thing. :pirate: So. Simply out of misplaced academic interest... If one WERE to switch over to a new technology system like this on a stock engine, what would be the expected improvements? Should there be improvements in performance, economy, drivability, emissions? All of the above?

Haha! Against my better judgment, I clicked. I knew I shouldn't have, but I clicked anyway. :stupid: You know there's absolutely no way I could buy this thing and not spend 1000 hrs figuring exactly how it works and why. And then another 1000 hrs with the custom design improvements. I need another project like I need a hole in the head!! Yeah, that would be an interesting question in PA. The car is old enough that it is completely exempt from emissions testing, but I'm not sure how PennDOT would interpret an old car with a new system. I suspect they wouldn't care. Old enough to be exempt? Then it's exempt. That would be my guess.

Thanks for the wayback. I'm not surprised at all that our old L-jet can't compete with modern systems. The advances in electronics since our system was made are simply astounding. Today, one could probably completely replace our entire ECU with a small microcontroller and a couple external components to handle the current required by the injectors. A project I would love to take on... But probably never will. :classic:

Yeah, I understand completely. I don't fault you one bit for trying the seemingly unrelated. I'd be trying anything by now as well. Something else I forgot to ask a while ago... I wanted to confirm the circumstances of the mid-RPM misfire. Does it occur only under light load (like when you are cruising along at a steady speed at 4500 RPM-ish) or does it occur under no load just sitting still with your foot a little bit on the gas pedal? (Or both?) Thanks for the needle info. I've been messing around with my flat-tops and have measured a few different needles recently including the N-27. I should probably post my findings sometime.

A quarter inch out of spec might be enough to be noticeable, but what could a low bowl level do to mid-RPM cruise that wouldn't be worse at high RPM WOT? Hey, I forgot to ask you the other day... When you bought OEM stock needles, what needle number did you buy? Do the new needles even have numbers marked on them? My round tops have N-27's but I believe they ran a couple different numbers over the first few years.

I was assuming 3 and 3, but I was just looking at the FSM and the dropping resistors (6 Ohm) are grouped into 4 and 2. Who knows why, and who knows if that situation continues into the ECU... Seems like it would have been much better from a manufacturing standpoint to use two identical 3 packs of the same resistors, but who knows? Maybe they were able to share the 4 resistor pack with some 4 cylinder engines and the 2 pack is the outlier? I guess as long as they aren't getting anywhere near what the driver transistor is rated for, it probably doesn't matter if it's 3/3 or 4/2. The whole batch fired thing kinda makes me wonder why they didn't just run one big honkin' wire from the ECU to the engine and then split it up there into smaller wires for each injector. Seems like it would be a lot less copper. Maybe they were planning to go to individual injector control at some point and wanted to be ready? Why am I stirring around in the FI pot? Because I just bought a 280 and have to restart all my learning curve over. I just got my head wrapped around the carbs, and now I have to start all over again from practically zero. This one is at the house now... Can't wait for you to see it.

cygnusx1, At the very end of that thread, you mentioned a L-Jet Lobotmy and attached a .zip. What's that all about? http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/95316-braaps-l6-efi-induction-advice-and-tips/page__st__20 I'm not a member over there... What was that .zip file?