gerg

This is exactly what DeFillipo reckons as well. It was a stuff up but gave the car a note that cannot be improved on.

I reckon the best application for an iron head would be in a boat. Lots of hot/cold running and general punishment that alloys won't take.

If running a crossover, there's no real need to run a dual system after that, as you've effectively merged them from that point on. If clearance is tight, I'd go a single 3" after the mufflers. Cheaper and much simpler. Don't get me wrong, I love a dual system above anything else but practicality should win over all.

As above, but also I've noticed that cars with dumper exhausts get filthy very quickly from the crap that blows up. Yep, it's that bad!

A bloke at work runs his XU1 on unleaded and runs flashlube in his petrol. No hardened valve seats and no dramas so far. I guess it depends on how much you're going to use it. Daily driver: use flashlube. Race car only: don't worry about it. If the valves wear out, time to do up the head anyway... At least you'll get some use out of it.

If you're only running a gauge, you can buy a t-fitting to install both a switch and gauge sender. I know VDO makes them, but any 1/4" BSP male to female brass tee will do it. A switch might cost 15 bucks at the most.

Ok I'm nowhere near my computer so I can't draw a diagram. Here's the numbers for the changeover relay: 30 - ign+ (i.e. coil +) 85 - looped from 30 86 - oil pressure switch 87 - blank 87a - to solenoid trigger So you can see that when the ignition is off, the relay has no supply. Ignition on, it now has supply and is earthed out by the oil switch and powers on, but power goes to 87, which goes nowhere. Start engine, oil switch cuts out, earth is lost so relay output reverts to 87a which powers out to your heavy duty solenoid.

I think 3.3 litres is still a decent size donk. Folks are getting stupid power out of RB26s so it can't be all bad. Ok they've got 72 over head cams, 21 turbos and 14 computers but it shows that cubes aren't everything.

Maybe some cold water over the tank? Some wet rags or something?

Yeah that sounds the goods, maybe make up a dummy shock that goes through the mount bolts on the saddle and threaded bar up from there. Take up the tension, remove saddle bolt then release slowly. Don't know how you'd go re-installing and lining up the bolt again. Maybe complete removal of top wishbone is the go.

Side-note: while you've got the shifter apart, there's a shift guide plate down the bottom that on RHD cars could do with some work on the 2-3 shift. I found that on my EA box, 2-3 shift was baulky as it would hit on the gate. The problem arises because the T5 started out as a LHD box and the motion of your arm changing gears is different in each case. I'll be putting this same box in my 302 XE when it needs a clutch, and will be grinding the corner off this gate (and maybe 4-5 shift too) to prevent said notchy-ness. Remember that being on the other side of the pivot, the whole shift pattern is upside-down and back-to front so 1st will be bottom right on the plate, reverse will be top left.

That setup is basically what I was describing but in older cars there is no circuit that's energised only with "engine running". Either a simple manual switch (if you can remember to use it) or like I mentioned, a changeover relay hooked up to the oil pressure warning lamp will do the job.

I've set up our breakdown truck at work to connect the second set only when the engine's running. I've tee'd off the oil pressure light switch to a changeover relay so it powers on when the light goes off. This relay then powers a heavy duty 200A relay to connect the second set of batteries. So simple but very effective. No electronics involved. We've had a bit of trouble with those Redarc relays. The little voltage-sensing module on the side of it can shit itself and not engage the second battery at all, then when you go to use it, it's flat. Also, some of those "smart charge" set ups won't charge a battery from dead flat. I reckon they've tried to be too smart in many ways. Also, if you're going to use the second battery just for 12V devices and not starting engines, get a deep cycle. You can draw them much further down without causing permanent damage. They're not good for jump starting though. A large truck-sized one might start a four-cylinder engine if you're lucky. Lots of capacity but poor cold cranking amps. They hold a charge for a long time too. Just remember to give it a decent charge separately every now and then. They take a slightly higher voltage to charge properly, and will never be completely charged parallel with a standard car battery.

Sorry mate I think I have you a bum steer. It might be T&E Tools. I often get them mixed up.

Looks like earth problems right there. The dull glow of the other lights says a lot. Is it one light or both? A crook relay can do funny things too

The duration at 0.050" is mental!

JBS are a brand that comes to mind. Not rubbish but not too expensive either. You could always make your own with some 3/4" booker bar and a couple of nuts and plates, if you're handy with a welder that is. You don't really need one for the rear springs, just undo the shocks and the clip on the brake line.

42.... I'd have thought that was an easy one to work out

Two labourers on a job site: Laurie, a short Maltese bloke, can carry 8 bricks at a time. His mate, Shane, is a tall beefy Aussie bloke. He can carry 12 at a time. This is torque. Laurie however, is quite athletic and nimble, and is able to shift those 8 bricks from one pile to another 3 times a minute. So he can move 24 bricks in that time. Shane is a bit slower, at only 2 trips, but each load contains more bricks. So Shane can actually move 24 bricks in the same time that Laurie can move 24. This is power. I think we all need to be on the same page when having a discussion about torque and power. XC I think you're referring to two engines of different stroke but with everything completely optimised for their corresponding size. I think everyone else is comparing two engines that are identical in every way except for stroke. The physics dictate that, RPM for RPM, more torque will make more power. In fact, at 5252 rpm, both hp and lb-ft are always identical. So if torque at this rpm is more, so will be the horsepower. So in order for a smaller engine to make the same hp as a bigger one, it must spin faster. The Boss 302, in race form, could put out around 500hp. However it had to rev upwards of 8000 rpm to achieve it. This kind of rpm dictates serious engine prep, an expensive valve train with solid lifters, and an engine that's off its tits. A 393 stroker Clevo could reach this number without cracking 6000 rpm, even using a near-stock valve train and hydraulic lifters. A much easier engine to live with, more mild-mannered and longer-lived. So everybody's right in regard to what they're talking about, but we're not talking about the same thing.

Power is torque times rpm. Two engines of same design but different displacement, at a given rpm: smaller one makes 350 Nm, bigger one makes 450. Guess which one makes more power? Sure you can spin the smaller one to higher rpm to make more power, but up to that point the torque has been less. Also, the faster you spin an engine, the less efficient it becomes due to friction and many other factors, so power is lost there too. I think too much emphasis is put on peak power and not average power and torque curves. This is the reason why the Engine Masters competition uses a formula that shows an engine's efficiency and not it's peak power. A saying by Cosworth Engineering: "Horsepower sells engines, torque wins races"

Jets? Depends on what's in there already... Primaries I'd go 68, Secondaries in a DP I reckon 72. Pure conjecture as i've no idea of how it's actually running, what exhaust it has, etc. My 302 likes 61-63s but it's a 600 Vac with annular primaries (need smaller jets). Timing? Clevos like about 40 total, but again that depends on how hot you run it, what fuel you're using, etc. With my MSD, I run 35 at idle with about 45 total, but I'm running a MAP sensor with it to take out timing by about 15 deg under full load. It cruises beautifully and idles like a pussycat. Let us know when you're going down the creek. I haven't been down there for yonks.

Just on the info given, i'd guess 400hp at the fly, limited by the stock ports. The cam isnt exactly wild either... my 302 has a Crow 270/280 and is still pretty tame. Still would be a lot of fun though, with those gears and converter, i reckon low 13s is on the cards. Recommendations? I've installed an MSD 6AL programmable ignition and i feel that this is the single best upgrade you can do to a performance street car. Other than that, sounds like you've got a pretty fun combo there. Would be a bit of a pain on the highway though. I'm guessing 3500 at 100ks, pretty bad on fuel and engine wear. Let us know how close we are in our estimates?

I reckon a tidy-up of the throat and de-dag of the rest of the port is as far as you should go. Maybe a port-match (can't hurt) Otherwise it will, like you say, be a slug until the turbo comes on. Remember you don't have nice, long runners in your inlet to help with port tuning. Air velocity is the key, so port size needs to be as small as possible, particularly if the engine is 20% smaller than what all the bits were intended for. I'd keep the valves stock size too. I reckon the exhaust port could cop a bit more work as I reckon it needs it. Don't bother with 3-angle valve cuts, etc, especially on the exhaust. You need all the surface area in the seat that you can get to transfer heat out of the valve. Camshafts, I'd go with a towing cam. They come in at about 1800 on a 250 so a 200 might be at 2100 or so. It actually had a towing cam in it (FYI everyone: this donk used to be mine) and that was very torquey if you can remember.

Mate nobody's knocking you for doing your own thing. I'm the same. It's folks like us on here that love to try different things and buck convention to discover new ideas. I didn't realise you were talking about 2 different engines. Your woody wagon is pre-cross flow I gather, so its exhaust note would be a bit lumpy with the duallies. A cross-flow might be a bit barky and slappy with separate pipes, but the x-pipe might cure a bit of that. Certainly it'll be nothing like a V8... I guess there's one way to find out if it all works.

Those manifolds were a bit goofy-looking and offered no performance benefit. They were designed like that purely for packaging. A crossy manifold is by no means a performance item either, but light years ahead in design. That said, there is a mob in the states that makes a manifold they call "6=8"... http://www.cliffordperformance.net/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CP&Product_Code=53-0186&Category_Code=F200 It's pretty much your standard 2-branch 6 into 2 headers but don't merge and instead are flanged for an exhaust on each. What makes them unique is the fact that they've swapped all the cylinders around so one "bank" gets 1,4,6 and the other gets 2,3,5. So the pulses in the exhaust would go L-R-R-L-R-L (if 1st bank was left pipe) which is very uneven, and sounds V8-like. This offers zero performance gain and they offer an x-pipe to go with it which increases performance apparently. Defeats the purpose because the x-pipe will kill the burble that the pipes are designed to create. If you want pure performance headers, stick to 6-3-1s.