Dan Baldwin

I'd get a running 2.8 liter out of a 280ZX NA (flat-top pistons), then build it up as you see fit. You can use the 240 carbs on it, no need to bother with the FI. I don't see the point in rebuilding the L24 unless you want it stock or you have to have it per competition rules. The L28 will give a lot more torque, and has a lot more power potential as well.

10:1 is NO PROBLEM on a stock-cammed L-series engine. I ran my 3.1 liter at ~10.3:1 for years with the stock cam, and 34 deg max ignition advance, on 91-93 octane pump with no problems. Maximizing CR WILL noticeably increase performance and economy, even with a stock cam. Going from ~8.5:1 to 10:1 should give on the order of 10% more torque EVERYWHERE. Maximizing CR is the 2nd most important thing to do (1st being maximize displacement) for NA performance. Ed, with a stock cam and a .040" shaved N42, you should be A-OK with the 2mm gasket like Gav says. Check head cc and calculate CR before assembly.

No reason not to do a stroker turbo. You would want to get custom forged pistons for it, though, so there's some added cost (I was quoted $900 from JE). CR with a P90 head and 2mm gasket comes to ~8.9:1 with KA pistons, but with custom you could make it lower quite easily.

Neighborhood kids asked if mine was a Ferrari once. YES! Girl at gas station thought it was a Porsche. I'll take that as a compliment, too. But the Ferrari comment, WOOHOO! That was exactly what I was aiming for. 250GTO, 275GTB, Daytona, the 240Z fits right in there, styling-wise.

V6 Miata coupe is pretty much what they should've built. Figure the weight gain from the engine could've been somewhat offset by having a coupe body structure. Light weight is not something you can easily ADD to a car via c/f driveshaft, aluminum suspension components, etc. Light weight has to be designed in. The 350Z platform was designed to be a 4-door luxury sport sedan. That's why it's overweight, however spartan it supposedly is. Speaking for myself, I'd RATHER have had a 4-seat turbo 4-cylinder new Z if it weighed in the neighborhood of 2400-2800 lb. But FWIW the car I *think* you're talking about, the Jerry Hirschburg car, was a 2-seat 240SX/Sylvia (with not-entirely-successful but very well-proportioned styling) with a non-turbo KA24 engine. I don't think he was proposing a 4-cyl Z, it's just that it was a big enough project for them to do without having to fit a v6 in it. With improved materials, design and analysis tools, and manufacturing, meeting current safety standards does not have to mean huge weight gain. I could've lived with as much as 2800 lb. for the new Z, but at 3300(+1000 fricking pounds over the 240Z!), forget it. I don't see why anyone would choose it over the G35 Coupe. In my book the Z's having only 2 seats doesn't make it any more of a "sports car" at all.

My sources say the L24 cannot be overbored as much as the L28. L28 can be safely overbored 3mm. L24, maybe 1.5mm without ultrasonically checking as abas suggests. If you don't wanna check, or the block isn't suitable for 3mm, you could use the L28 crank, rods, and pistons (preferably flat-tops for compression ratio) to make the L24 into an L26. Do you mean N42 head? We don't have a P42 over here. Anyway, the N42 would go well with your theoretical L24+L28=L26 motor. A 1mm overbored L24 with L28 crank, rods, and flat-top pistons and N42 head would net you a 9.5:1 CR 2627cc engine, not too shabby.

In name only. One is a lightweight bare-bones sports car, the other is a supremely competent 2-seat luxosport sedan. NOT that there's anything wrong with that if that's what you're into. Exactly, that's the problem. In this regard an '03 Z is further removed from a '70 Z than an '03 Mustang GT is from a '70 Mustang, or Camaro for that matter. So the animosity from some of us in the 240Z crowd should come as no surprise. I for one am not living in the past. It's just that for my purposes (beating up on Corvettes, 911 turbos, Cobra replicas, Vipers, etc. at the track), the 240Z platform is far better suited than the 350Z. Had the new Z been a built on a shortened/lightened Sylvia/240SX platform with the VQ engine (and had it had styling more reminiscent of a Ferrari than a Celica/AudiTT/Cougar/Eclipse) I woulda been all over it. For me, it's all about WEIGHT (and styling). I keep hoping one o' these years an automaker is going to give us a 240hp, 2400 lb., rwd, independently-suspended performance car for $24k. That's my magic formula. Nissan coulda made the new Z that car. Instead they made a 2-seat G35. They made a VERY good car (I've driven a couple, and been driven around the track in a couple). But it is NOT the rebirth of the original Z. Please excuse me for being seriously disappointed.

You shoulda tried retarding the ignition timing until it started to lose power. You proved advancing it further hurt, perhaps retarding would've helped. In my limited experience, there's usually a ~5deg range where power is unaffected. I set mine to the lower end of that range (~34deg max advance in my case). Your peak torque seems very low for 2.8 liters. Should be in the neighborhood of 165 or so IMO. Flat-top pistons would help you out a lot. As far as cam timing, retarding it (not advancing) is what generally helps top-end at the expense of low-end. A mild cam and bigger valves would almost certainly extend your torque curve upwards without unduly hurting the low-end.

Er, NO Z had a live rear axle. The 280ZX's IRS is a different setup (semi-trailing arms vs. the Z's superior Chapman struts), and the ZX halfshafts won't go in the Z without some work. I personally used a '72+ R180 moustache bar, with the diff mounting holes slotted and enlarged to fit the R200 diff. I reused the 240Z halfshafts as well, though I know a lot of folks insist that the 280Z R200 halfshafts should be used. I used a '72+ front diff mount, but had to slot the mounting holes in that as well. If you can find an R200-equipped 280Z parts donor (front mount, moustache bar, curved rear crossmember (only if you currently have the straight '70, '71 part now), halfshafts), that might be best.

Mine weighed in at 51/49 F/R with 1/8 tank of fuel, no driver. 49/51 F/R with me in it (also at 1/8 tank). Battery is 22 lb., behind the passenger seat. 50 lb. roll bar behind the seats, and an R200 diff (maybe 15 lb. heavier?) in place of the original R180. Other than that, largely stock as far as weights are concerned.

As long as your fuel pump and lines are up to your hp, there shouldn't be any pressure drop. I used the stock fuel rail with return line on my 3x2 setup. I routed the supply originally meant for the forward SU carb to the front of the forward 3x2 carb, from there to the mid carb, to the aft carb, from there back to the fuel supply originally meant for the rear SU carb. So basically I'm feeding the 3x2 carbs from both ends.

Fuel is recirculated with the return, keeps it from getting too hot just sitting in the lines. I'm always hearing about triple carbed cars with no return having vapor lock problems, even with heat shields and insulation. I have no such problems using the stock fuel return, though I don't have a heat shield or insulation.

Homage to "the original"?! "It is 1981 again"?!1981?! That's the problem with the new 350, it's a ZX at heart, not the original 240Z. OK, having been driven around NHIS a couple of times in the 350Z, I have to admit it is a very good sport coupe. But even Steve fricking Millen driving one couldn't keep me and the 240Z behind him! Seriously, congrats on yer new ride! Old Man Grumpus Oh yeah, my 240Z looks out from the garage at the '95 Z28 in the driveway and just laughs!

They should employ a venturi undertray and reduce wing size(s) such that the undertray provides more than 50% of rear AND front downforce. How much of that current 30% is on the front wheels? I bet something like 20% (6% of total) or less. The problem is that almost all the downforce at the front is from the front wing. When flow over that is spoiled by a leading car, forget about making a pass. In IndyCars, NASCAR, and CART, faster cars can actually PASS other cars. In F1, leading cars have a very hard time passing mid-running cars. THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH F1 HERE. Has been for YEARS. (IndyCars and CART actually went too far the OTHER way, with the Handford device on oval races, which made/makes it comically easy for a slower trailing car to pass a faster leading car.) I'm not *necessarily* for the removal of wings in F1. The grooved-tire rule was and is retarded. Wanna reduce cornering speeds, while keeping straightaway speeds in check? Smaller displacement and smaller wings. Grooved tires is just silly. F1 has a long history of DRACONIAN enforcement of inconsequential rules violations (like Montoya being TWO SECONDS late getting off the grid), while completely ignoring flagrant life-endangering offenses, purely depending on politics. Schumacher has been on both ends of this. As an upstart, he was robbed of race wins for truly MINOR offenses (passing on the pace lap, marginally worn flat-bottom-board). As F1's golden boy, his ramming of Hill in Australia for the title was ignored, and his blatant attempt to take out Villeneuve a couple of years later for the title, which should've certainly resulted in a 3-race ban, was punished with a slap-on-the-wrist (loss of 2nd in the championship, as if M.S. gave a rat's arse about 2nd!). Agreed. Something to be said for variety as well. Not saying eliminate pit stops, just REFUELLING. Carrying all fuel on board used to be one of the things that separated F1 from other top-level autoracing. Made it much more pure, to me anyway. If you can call atomized fuel spray igniting on hot exhausts "minor"... It's just stupid to have it pressurized. Expensive, too. F1 did before refuelling. NASCAR-style yee-haw antics isn't what I'm talking about. Remember when F1 crews looked to be somewhat relaxed and having a good time *between* stops? Now they're quite obviously miserable sitting around in their monkey-suits. Just about EVERY F1 rule change in the past 12 years has been bad for the sport. They even screwed up the long-overdue extension of points to lower places, by not giving 1st more points over 2nd than 2nd gets over 3rd (obviously Schumacher's dominance dictated that move).

F1 sucks. Yeah I watch it. Geez could the rules be any worse? It's like the cars are DESIGNED to not be able to pass. Flat stepped undertray => almost all downforce comes from wings => lose all front downforce when you get up behind a competitor => you have to be 2+seconds a lap faster to actually be able to pass. STUPID. Grooved tires: STUPID and ugly. The DOT-legal Hoosiers I do track events on look more like real race tires. Punishing Montoya repeatedly year after year for having the gall to be competitive with Schumacher: STUPID and maddening to witness. Challenge for a corner? DQ or penalty. Mandated V10 engine configuration: STUPID. It was fantastic when Honda V12s, Renault V10s and Ford V8s were all competitive. Music! Pressurized refuelling: STUPID and dangerous. I LOVED it when they had to carry ALL the fuel for the race on board. Different setups would dominate in different phases of the race. 5-second tire-change-only pit stops. Pit crews wore shorts and short-sleeves and actually looked like they were ENJOYING themselves, where now they're in those ridiculous space suits. Yellow flags/caution cars, bleh pit lane speed limits, ditto. OK, the last two have merits, but it WAS more fun to watch before these rules were implemented. Basically, F1 copied all the WRONG things about CART, and didn't copy any of the RIGHT things (spec venturi undertray for one). CART was awesome through the 90s, but has been mismanaged to near death (Tony George keeping them out of the Indy 500 starting in 95/96 (?) didn't help things either). IRL? Hate it. NASCAR? Hate it. O' course, if you wanna watch REAL racing, MotoGP is where it's at!

200rwkW/.7457 = 268rwhp, not too shabby! N42 heads came on 280Zs over here in the States. If they're not available in Oz, shaving the P90 sound like your best bet. What setup *should* you go for? I'd say get the full 3.1 displacement (LD28 crank, L24 rods, 3mm overbore, KA pistons) and aim for 10.3:1 with a 2mm gasket. With KA24 pistons with only the raised rim shaved off (.5mm), that means you want ~43cc chambers. side note: LEngine calculator gives incorrect CR for shaved dished pistons. For .5mm shaved KA pistons, put in 0 (zero) for "fly cut" in LEngine, then subtract 0.1 (more like .075 really) from the CR result. I think you'll end up shaving a P90 more than .080" to get there, so shimming the cam towers will likely be required. This setup will allow you to run stock cam on pump gas, but gives you the ability to go as high as 11.6:1 with a 1mm gasket. Or you can make a 1.5mm gasket by removing one of the .5mm layers from a 2mm gasket to get 11:1. I'd start with a stock or mild cam and SUs, KILLER street setup. Should have you in the 205 rw lb-ft range, with peak power maybe ~195rwhp at maybe 5200rpm? From there you can cam, carb, and headwork your way up as desired. FWIW, my setup is shite below ~3200rpm. Kick-arse at the track, though! Probably not too good for autocross.

The devil's in the details. *Some* motors like that make upwards of 300 crank hp. Others I've seen results for in the range of 165rwhp, or less. IOW, it DEPENDS! Thing one, you'll have to shave the bejeezus off the P90 to get decent CR, or you could just use an N42. What kind of powerband are you looking to have? If it's a track car, you'll want a big cam and headwork to get big hp numbers. For a street car you can get killer torque and great performance with a milder cam and little or no headwork, but the absolute peak hp number won't be as impressive. For a track motor, triple carbs are the bee's knees. You'll want 44 or 45mm, and headwork and a big cam are a must. For a street motor you could use the stock SUs, or modified bored SUs, or 2" Jag SUs and you'll be doing fine. Street motor, I'd aim for ~10.25:1 CR. Track motor, 11:1 (big cam allows for this). Priorities should be: maximize displacement maximize compression ratio (dependent on cam) maximize rpm (dependent on design usage)

You can use your e88 head. High rpm breathing may suffer, but you'd never notice below 5000. It's still a winning proposition, max power will be greater, but at a lower rpm. Only F54 non-turbos have flat-top pistons. You won't have to cut pistons, that is frequently done on stroker builds due to piston pop-up. If your E88 is a '72, CR will be ~9.8:1. You'll want to use 91 octane or better for sure. The '73 (and '74) E88 gives lower compression. The '71 E88 might give higher compression. I know it's chambers look like the earlier E31 head, but I don't know if the chamber size is smaller like on the E31, or the same size as the '72 E88. If you can find one, I'd recommend a 280Z N42 head. Same size chambers as the 72 E88, but with the bigger valves.

V8? No big deal. You don't weaken the structure one iota by installing a V8. Of course the torque load from the drivetrain will be greater, but at least the structure is there. Butchering the unibody with T-tops is an entirely different story!

Nobody has to be fined. No surveillance of the populace is required. Nobody has to be unreasonably detained. All that has to happen is higher CAFE (preferably) and/or higher gas taxes. There is no reason to give the cops more reasons to hassle us. What, you don't like these tangents we go off on?! The "hydrogen society" is still a long way off by my estimation. W's initiative on promoting research is just another way to funnel OUR money to giant corporations, without really doing anything to solve the PROBLEM, which can very easily be addressed with existing technology by INCREASING CAFE. Unfortunately, this won't happen because of the US automakers, who would lose MASSIVE market share.

Yeah, and the cameras they'll be putting in our homes to monitor our behavior could be used in our defense as well... Speed in and of itself isn't necessarily dangerous. Speeding tickets are about revenue generation, period. The "Authorities" having access to black box data is very disturbing indeed, but more disturbing is that people seem to be welcoming it! You're really scaring the crap out of me. GPS data will soon follow speed/acceleration data, then it'll be chip implants so the gummint will be able to keep up with our every move. 1984, here we come.

Tomahawk, you ARE kidding, right? The only way we will become a police state is if we ask for it. Seems like we're on our way... But you ARE kidding, RIGHT?! Unfortunately, we're a lot closer to what you suggest than you might think. A lot of vehicles have "black boxes" that record things like speed and acceleration (in all 3 axes, I believe) the final 5 seconds before airbag deployment. There's been at least one case where this data was being considered as evidence in a criminal trial. Only a matter of time before they record for the life of the vehicle, and the data fed to a Government Agency Database. Because the soccermoms will be SCREAMING for it. "The children, won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" We're screwed.

I want one of THESE: SMART Roadster. These cars look FANTASTIC! I'd have to swap in a Hayabusa motor, of course:classic: I just hope they bring them over here.

Hydrogen is EXPENSIVE to produce, and it requires a lot of energy. There are other fuel cell technologies, such as direct methanol, but the catalyst material required makes a fuel cell much over 1500W prohibitively expensive. The stoichiometric products of combustion of gasoline are H20 and C02, but of course you get some other stuff like CO, HCs, and NOx, too (though less of those byproducts every year). What this country NEEDS to do to minimize its impact on the environment and our dependency on foreign oil is to quit driving vehicles that are WAY oversized and overweight for normal day-to-day usage. They need to increase CAFE standards and apply them to trucks and SUVs as well as cars. And/or increase the gas tax. The former appeals a lot more to me. The by-product of upping the CAFE will be smaller, lighter-weight, FUN cars! The way things are going, cars just get bigger and heavier every year. DUMB. I don't want a 3300 lb. Z, I want a 2300 lb Z! (oh yeah, I HAVE one. Yipee!) I don't want a 3400 lb. 3-series BMW, I want a 2400 lb. 3-series BMW! yadda yadda yadda.... Cars are too big and heavy, and big, heavy, dumb Americans seem to only want MORE. The only way to get the cars we (well, I anyway) want is through legislation. As much as I hate to say it. Call/write your congressman today! Of course all Bush wants us to do is consume MORE:stupid: Rant over.

Go ahead if you must. I just hate to see a lot of effort, time, and money spent for next to no gain, and perhaps for a big loss! A Z on the road or the track beats the hell out of a Z in the garage or under a tarp, made into a cooling system science project. In any case, if such a project is to be undertaken, the first order of business is optimization of the engine with the stock cooling configuration. Then, a LOT of dyno testing, varying the CR, maintaining consistent valve timing (cam tower shims), ensuring consistent A/F ratio, yadda yadda yadda, to establish a max performance baseline for the stock coolant flow direction. Only then should the reverse-flow system be implemented, and dyno testing repeated for varying CR. FWIW, I'm running 11:1 CR on pump gas.