'80 ZAK L48 vs '81 ZDD L81
04-13-2015, 09:52 PM
#1
'80 ZAK L48 vs '81 ZDD L81
I've been reading through the forum, but haven't found a comparison.
Has either of these engines proven to be more reliable long term than the other?
Which is considered more favorable in terms of cost of parts & maintenance?
Is one of them more preferred to own & why?
I appreciate the fountain of knowledge on the forum!
Has either of these engines proven to be more reliable long term than the other?
Which is considered more favorable in terms of cost of parts & maintenance?
Is one of them more preferred to own & why?
I appreciate the fountain of knowledge on the forum!
04-13-2015, 11:14 PM
#2
Race Director
They're both small block Chevys, they're both 190 hp. They're basically the same engine, the differences between them are minimal.
Parts cost wise, the big difference would be the carb and exhaust manifolds. The 81 uses a computer controlled carb, and stainless steel "headers", which are a little more expensive to replace, than the same parts on an 80.
Performance wise, the 80 may have a slight advantage, only because of it's better rear axle ratio. But if there is a performance advantage, it's probably so slight that you'd never notice, it in real world driving.
If one is preferable to the other, it's only from a personal preference standpoint. Some people prefer the 80 because it doesn't have the computer, while others aren't bothered by the computer at all.
Me, I like the 81. The computer doesn't bother me, because it really doesn't do much on an 81. The 81 rides a little better, because of the fiberglass rear spring, and might get a little better gas mileage too. The 81's were also offered with a few more creature comforts, such as power mirrors and power driver seat. Finally, a portion of the 81's were built at the then new Bowling Green assembly plant, and featured far superior build quality to the 80 & 81's that came out of St. Louis. It's not much of a factor after 34 years, but in 1981 it was a big deal.
By the way, I own a Bowling Green 81, that I bought new.
Parts cost wise, the big difference would be the carb and exhaust manifolds. The 81 uses a computer controlled carb, and stainless steel "headers", which are a little more expensive to replace, than the same parts on an 80.
Performance wise, the 80 may have a slight advantage, only because of it's better rear axle ratio. But if there is a performance advantage, it's probably so slight that you'd never notice, it in real world driving.
If one is preferable to the other, it's only from a personal preference standpoint. Some people prefer the 80 because it doesn't have the computer, while others aren't bothered by the computer at all.
Me, I like the 81. The computer doesn't bother me, because it really doesn't do much on an 81. The 81 rides a little better, because of the fiberglass rear spring, and might get a little better gas mileage too. The 81's were also offered with a few more creature comforts, such as power mirrors and power driver seat. Finally, a portion of the 81's were built at the then new Bowling Green assembly plant, and featured far superior build quality to the 80 & 81's that came out of St. Louis. It's not much of a factor after 34 years, but in 1981 it was a big deal.
By the way, I own a Bowling Green 81, that I bought new.
04-15-2015, 11:02 PM
#3
They're both small block Chevys, they're both 190 hp. They're basically the same engine, the differences between them are minimal.
Parts cost wise, the big difference would be the carb and exhaust manifolds. The 81 uses a computer controlled carb, and stainless steel "headers", which are a little more expensive to replace, than the same parts on an 80.
Performance wise, the 80 may have a slight advantage, only because of it's better rear axle ratio. But if there is a performance advantage, it's probably so slight that you'd never notice, it in real world driving.
If one is preferable to the other, it's only from a personal preference standpoint. Some people prefer the 80 because it doesn't have the computer, while others aren't bothered by the computer at all.
Me, I like the 81. The computer doesn't bother me, because it really doesn't do much on an 81. The 81 rides a little better, because of the fiberglass rear spring, and might get a little better gas mileage too. The 81's were also offered with a few more creature comforts, such as power mirrors and power driver seat. Finally, a portion of the 81's were built at the then new Bowling Green assembly plant, and featured far superior build quality to the 80 & 81's that came out of St. Louis. It's not much of a factor after 34 years, but in 1981 it was a big deal.
By the way, I own a Bowling Green 81, that I bought new.
Parts cost wise, the big difference would be the carb and exhaust manifolds. The 81 uses a computer controlled carb, and stainless steel "headers", which are a little more expensive to replace, than the same parts on an 80.
Performance wise, the 80 may have a slight advantage, only because of it's better rear axle ratio. But if there is a performance advantage, it's probably so slight that you'd never notice, it in real world driving.
If one is preferable to the other, it's only from a personal preference standpoint. Some people prefer the 80 because it doesn't have the computer, while others aren't bothered by the computer at all.
Me, I like the 81. The computer doesn't bother me, because it really doesn't do much on an 81. The 81 rides a little better, because of the fiberglass rear spring, and might get a little better gas mileage too. The 81's were also offered with a few more creature comforts, such as power mirrors and power driver seat. Finally, a portion of the 81's were built at the then new Bowling Green assembly plant, and featured far superior build quality to the 80 & 81's that came out of St. Louis. It's not much of a factor after 34 years, but in 1981 it was a big deal.
By the way, I own a Bowling Green 81, that I bought new.
I owned an '80 Lincoln with a 351 Cleveland motor. When the time came to rebuild/replace the carburetor, I learned it was a Variable Venturi that (for good reason) was used only that year. I couldn't find someone to rebuild it & eventually found a rebuilt one, which was pricey, in another state. Once it arrived, it was such a PITA to adjust that I tired of the issue & sold the car - I now know the engine could've been adapted for a conventional carburetor.
I understand the '81 Vette has a single year, modified Rochester Quadrajet, "smart carburetor." Is it a similar situation in that it's difficult & pricey to rebuild/replace?
04-16-2015, 12:40 AM
#4
Burning Brakes
It's interesting you mention the carburetor, because it reminded me of a situation years ago.
I owned an '80 Lincoln with a 351 Cleveland motor. When the time came to rebuild/replace the carburetor, I learned it was a Variable Venturi that (for good reason) was used only that year. I couldn't find someone to rebuild it & eventually found a rebuilt one, which was pricey, in another state. Once it arrived, it was such a PITA to adjust that I tired of the issue & sold the car - I now know the engine could've been adapted for a conventional carburetor.
I understand the '81 Vette has a single year, modified Rochester Quadrajet, "smart carburetor." Is it a similar situation in that it's difficult & pricey to rebuild/replace?
I owned an '80 Lincoln with a 351 Cleveland motor. When the time came to rebuild/replace the carburetor, I learned it was a Variable Venturi that (for good reason) was used only that year. I couldn't find someone to rebuild it & eventually found a rebuilt one, which was pricey, in another state. Once it arrived, it was such a PITA to adjust that I tired of the issue & sold the car - I now know the engine could've been adapted for a conventional carburetor.
I understand the '81 Vette has a single year, modified Rochester Quadrajet, "smart carburetor." Is it a similar situation in that it's difficult & pricey to rebuild/replace?
That VV carb, however, I had one on my '77 Mustang II. I echo your sentiments. Atrocious piece of junk.
Later,
Lee
04-16-2015, 10:13 AM
#5
Race Director
Even though the 81 Q-Jet is slightly different than earlier Q-Jets, with it's electrical terminals for the Computer Command Control, its still basically a Rochester Q-Jet carb. The 81 Q-Jet is readily available, it's just a little more money, than the earlier ones. The typical rebuilt Q-Jet sells for $250-$300, while the 81 CCC carbs run about $400. Rebuild kits for them are also a little bit more, at around $40 for the 81, and $30 for kits for the earlier Q-Jets.
04-16-2015, 01:57 PM
#6
Le Mans Master
Even though the 81 Q-Jet is slightly different than earlier Q-Jets, with it's electrical terminals for the Computer Command Control, its still basically a Rochester Q-Jet carb. The 81 Q-Jet is readily available, it's just a little more money, than the earlier ones. The typical rebuilt Q-Jet sells for $250-$300, while the 81 CCC carbs run about $400. Rebuild kits for them are also a little bit more, at around $40 for the 81, and $30 for kits for the earlier Q-Jets.
04-16-2015, 02:02 PM
#7
What about overall, the L48 vs L81?
04-16-2015, 02:07 PM
#8
Le Mans Master
04-16-2015, 02:58 PM
#9
04-16-2015, 09:34 PM
#10
Le Mans Master
06-11-2016, 07:11 AM
#11
...Me, I like the 81. The computer doesn't bother me, because it really doesn't do much on an 81. The 81 rides a little better, because of the fiberglass rear spring, and might get a little better gas mileage too. The 81's were also offered with a few more creature comforts, such as power mirrors and power driver seat. Finally, a portion of the 81's were built at the then new Bowling Green assembly plant, and featured far superior build quality to the 80 & 81's that came out of St. Louis. It's not much of a factor after 34 years, but in 1981 it was a big deal.