Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Paul22, this may interest you!

"L28 TURBO ENGINE 4 SALE - This engine was built by SWR & runs a P90 turbo head, T3 turbo, EFI manifold with 300ZX 55mm T/B, Wolf 3D ECU, FJ20 turbo injectors, electronic ignition, 125kw@w on 8psi boost & has only travelled 15,000 kms. It also comes with the electric fuel pump & swirl pot, a 2.5" exhaust system & the modified rev tacho. Engine is still in the car (260Z), can hear it run & test drive. All relevant paperwork & receipts are also available for viewing.

Price: $4500ono Location: Wollongong

Contact: Nick Email: [email protected]

Phone: 0416 283 194 (hours: 9am-9pm)".

Now, I know it's a Z engine & will reqire the sump mod which I will do if you're keen on this engine.

Ghostrider is right, this costs alot of money so be prepared to spend heaps.

Oh, & Ghostrider... 86mm/87mm pistons will go in a L24, I built one a couple of years back with triple webbers & it made 135kw@wheels, it's a daily driver & also does track work from time to time & is still going strong. However, I wouldn't do it to a turbo engine...

Nick.

Appreciate that but I am pretty keen to build my own engine and use my existing block so the numbers match. i understand that mods such as these require a lot of time and cash.

Thanks,

Paul

Oh, & Ghostrider... 86mm/87mm pistons will go in a L24, I built one a couple of years back with triple webbers & it made 135kw@wheels, it's a daily driver & also does track work from time to time & is still going strong. However, I wouldn't do it to a turbo engine...

Nick.

Nick, your possibly right.

I could probably fit them into an L20A block too, but the water jackets would be a bit large.

Your quoting SWR as an engine builder? Stewart Wilkins will never recommend an over bore of 4.0mm in any L series block. The cylinder walls would be paper thin and very suspect to failure.

You might have done it, but I'm sure not going to try.

I have 2 x F54 blocks and they wont take a 3.0mm over bore, as I had them sonic tested to find out, as I was going to build an 2968 engine, but am settling for 2818 instead.

I don't know that these guys would want to be doing it either, but I suppose ANYTHING is possible if you want it enough.

Cheers, D

im wondering that too, theres a few L28 (carbied) engines at my wreckers.... i can get one for $20!!!

The factory cams have codes stamped in the back end face and the L24E cam is NOT really suitable for a turbo application, but it has been used in the past.

The best off the shelf cams are L28E and will have the markings A or F stamped in the back.

The A cam came from engines origin prior to 8/81 and were in N42/N47 & P79 heads and F cams came from 9/81 onwards in P79 heads only.

Cheers, D.

The factory cams have codes stamped in the back end face and the L24E cam is NOT really suitable for a turbo application, but it has been used in the past.

The best off the shelf cams are L28E and will have the markings A or F stamped in the back.

The A cam came from engines origin prior to 8/81 and were in N42/N47 & P79 heads and F cams came from 9/81 onwards in P79 heads only.

Cheers, D.

will the L28 cam go alright in a N/A l24e and what difference will it make

will the L28 cam go alright in a N/A l24e and what difference will it make

Make up your mind!

You going Turbo or N/a??

Best of best off the shelf n/a cams is the one stamped C and it was in all E88 headed 260Z.

It is reputedly the Nismo works cam.

Nick, your possibly right.

I could probably fit them into an L20A block too, but the water jackets would be a bit large.

Your quoting SWR as an engine builder? Stewart Wilkins will never recommend an over bore of 4.0mm in any L series block. The cylinder walls would be paper thin and very suspect to failure.

You might have done it, but I'm sure not going to try.

I have 2 x F54 blocks and they wont take a 3.0mm over bore, as I had them sonic tested to find out, as I was going to build an 2968 engine, but am settling for 2818 instead.

I don't know that these guys would want to be doing it either, but I suppose ANYTHING is possible if you want it enough.

Cheers, D

Ghostrider, I failed to clarify that the engine I built was 3mm over bore & not 4mm but have seen it done... I agree 4mm is playing with fire. In N/A trim 3mm is safe as long as the block is acceptable after sonic testing.

Paul... if you need pistons etc, I have a brand new set of 86mm with rings for $300.

Nick.

Ghostrider, I failed to clarify that the engine I built was 3mm over bore & not 4mm but have seen it done... I agree 4mm is playing with fire. In N/A trim 3mm is safe as long as the block is acceptable after sonic testing.

Paul... if you need pistons etc, I have a brand new set of 86mm with rings for $300.

Nick.

Yeah! for sure.

I talk with SWR a lot and I was going to put an 87mm bore into my L20A and use sleeves, but the cost was preventative. The block would loose all of it's rigidity and it would be a mamouth task to complete and with custom liners, the bill would exceed $1500 after decking, recess grooving etc etc etc, so the F54 was obviously the better alternative.

These pistons & rings you have? Are they FLAT TOP and are the rings CHROME??

Cheers, D

Yeah! for sure.

I talk with SWR a lot and I was going to put an 87mm bore into my L20A and use sleeves, but the cost was preventative. The block would loose all of it's rigidity and it would be a mamouth task to complete and with custom liners, the bill would exceed $1500 after decking, recess grooving etc etc etc, so the F54 was obviously the better alternative.

These pistons & rings you have? Are they FLAT TOP and are the rings CHROME??

Cheers, D

Pistons are dished & rings are chrome.

Nick.

Yeah! for sure.

I talk with SWR a lot and I was going to put an 87mm bore into my L20A and use sleeves, but the cost was preventative. The block would loose all of it's rigidity and it would be a mamouth task to complete and with custom liners, the bill would exceed $1500 after decking, recess grooving etc etc etc, so the F54 was obviously the better alternative.

These pistons & rings you have? Are they FLAT TOP and are the rings CHROME??

Cheers, D

Just to let you know my plans, I'm building 2 N/A L28's at the moment using L14 rods. the 1st I'm using 86mm SR20DET pistons & E88 Skyline head with N42 valves (I believe it to be the best head combo to use), & the other I'm using 87mm VG30 flat tops with N42 or N47 round port.

Nick.

Make up your mind!

You going Turbo or N/a??

Best of best off the shelf n/a cams is the one stamped C and it was in all E88 headed 260Z.

It is reputedly the Nismo works cam.

i am going turbo i just wanted to know if i can put the cam the engine now or should i wait till its turboed.

I will do a bit of hunting around for one of those 260z cams

Yes F54 block is what you want I think.

Lots of goof info on OZDAT forums

F54's were the 280ZX Turbo block and in turbo form, never came to Australia, but some of our n/a 280's had F54 blocks in them, but as far as I know, F54 blocks never came out in 260Z's.

And JC the cam would be fine, now or later.

Cheers, D

Just don't play your hand when looking for the 260 cam, not everyone knows, but I'm sure if you tell them the price will go through the roof.

The 260 cam has 256 duration and for your relative stock L24E turbo, it will probably be a little long and the L28 cam should be easier to get.

Cheers, D

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...