Jump to content
HybridZ

jpndave

Donating Members
  • Content count

    223
  • Donations

    80.00 USD 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Feedback

    0%

jpndave last won the day on June 14

jpndave had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About jpndave

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/123712-240z-pro-touring-build/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hyde Park, UT
  • Interests
    73 240Z owned for 30+yrs(my high school car). Doing a full makeover now, Voodoo/T56 Magnum, Suspension, Brakes, etc. http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/123712-240z-pro-touring-build/

    2007 Jeep JK Unlimited, LS3/6L80E/242AMG https://www.rme4x4.com/showthread.php?77265-Jeep-JK-Unlimited-quot-Transformer-quot-6-2L-quot-LS3-quot-GM-build

Recent Profile Visitors

3878 profile views
  1. jpndave

    240Z Pro-Touring Build

    LOL, no that's just the different sizes I have there will be two spares. I'll use whatever balances front/rear/clutch out correctly. Hopefully I have the correct size...
  2. Helmet to bar clearance I can see being an issue. Setting the bar back far enough would help but the low roofline could make that tight. I haven't tracked my car and the bar is still coming so my experience is from all the years prior to teardown.
  3. Nice progress on the project! As far as room in these cars, my experience ~6' similar to Omar, is that they are quite roomy. For that era from Japan they were definitely made for a US sized market. It's one of the few cars I've owned that I don't just run the sliders all the way back. Seating is reclined but it's a sports car and should be.
  4. jpndave

    Group Buy on SpeedHut Gauges

    You can get faces/needles that are very similar. Even with black bezels they will still show so not an exact match if you really want a "restored" look. That said short of a full restoration, which should be OEM and not at all what this forum is about, this is by far the best option. I've had Autometer, VDO, and multiple other instruments including some high end race pieces. These are by far the best way to go for a Z IMO and for sure what my car will get. We purchased a set from ihiryu for my son's Jeep CJ project (and these are the lower line) his service, prices and the quality of the gauges were outstanding. I'd have already purchased mine but I'm not at that point in the project yet and they may have new features or updates between here and there so I am waiting until I need them for that buy, with any luck maybe this year's Black Friday sale.
  5. Very nice work on the exhaust. While a single can certainly give the output if sized correctly - especially torque. Duals are what I'll be using, easier to route the smaller pipes and the look as well as sound out the back are more what I want. Trying to get a 3-1/2" (that's the equivalent size to 2-1/2 duals) single pipe down the middle of the car with a T56 Magnum and all the rear components sounds pretty daunting to me. looking at the photos of alainburon's car, I don't see a 3-1/2 pipe going down there without a pretty good clearance compromise. My LS3 (now a cammed 6.8L) runs nicely on dual 2-1/2 into single 3-1/2 and sounds good - in the Jeep as more a truck type application. I'll take the duals in my Z.
  6. jpndave

    280z Ford 4.6L Mod Motor

    Nice write-up. Where are you in Saskatchewan? I spent some time up there years ago. Interesting how much different the Mod motor is to the Voodoo/Coyote. Your thread gives me some hope.
  7. Nice work! Great idea on the spray can. How did the pickup tube affect things as you were spraying inverted? Did you just use the full cans for that part? FYI Eastwood makes a paint for inside frame rails. Haven't used it but plan to on both my projects. https://www.eastwood.com/eastwood-internal-frame-coating-14oz-aerosol.html
  8. jpndave

    4.6 DOHC / 280Z

    I did a quick check on ECU compatibility and the earliest Mustang I can flash is 99 - later on other models. You can see the list here. https://www.hptuners.com/vehicles/ I'd be happy to flash one for you if it's possible and you cover costs (credits and shipping). I'm not sure of workarounds and VATS on the earlier models, if other programmers will do it or if you could retofit a newer harness and ECU. It might get more complicated than its worth.
  9. jpndave

    4.6 DOHC / 280Z

    I'm planning a Voodoo in my project (though it may get a Coyote temporarily as I can source one cheaper and have the parts to upgrade the truck engine to Mustang specs which would actually make money when it came out.) All the Ford DOHC and to some degree the modulars are similar as I understand it though I'm most familiar with Voodoo and Coyote. There simply isn't much support out there, all but the Voodoo are heavier than an LS, they are tall and wide. Lots of reasons not to go that route. Personally I'd be better off with an LS as I've done them multiple times before and it's just a better fitting, more cost effective and supported package in many ways. And, just because you have it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Ok, that's the realistic approach and what you are going to run into here for the most part. There is a reason that most of the swaps are LS based. That said... I think it is doable if you are OK reinventing the wheel and fabricating your own parts. I'm running the Voodoo because I want the free and high revving engine with a more linear power delivery and the sound, well it simply doesn't compare. LS torque hits like a truck down low unless you cam it insane then no smooth low RPM cruise which is great for my JK Jeep (it has a VVT cammed as hot as I can and still keep a smooth bottom end ~600hp 4" stroke LS3 6.8L) but not what I'm looking for in the 240Z. Coyote would be ok but doesn't have the insane sound and high rpm. Coyote is down a little on peak hp and rpm but better torque. In a heavier Mustang, the Coyote is quicker quarter mile but Voodoo goes through the traps higher speed. That might be different with a 2500lb car. The DOHC and VVT give you best of both worlds, you can have top end and still keep a stable bottom. Voodoo just has the sound and insane top end from the flat plane. 4.6L is more or less just heavier and less Coyote (I'm simplifying here). As far as fit, the Coyote is too tall and really close width at the heads. You've got 1" clearance on either side of the the strut tower by my measurements. Down lower on the engine should be clear. There is a low profile race oil pan that should solve height. Bellhousing on the mod motors I think is the same and I have one for my T56 Magnum. LMK if you need that application to source one. Accessory brackets might need moved depending on what you get. Depending on how far back you go electrical is likely the least of your worries. I think my HPTuners will probably flash it. For sure the Coyote and Voodoo. Otherwise, electrical is just pull the schematic and rewire, not too difficult. The older Z is simple enough I'm planning on just running one new fuse box for engine and car rather than two parallel. Fasteners and wiring on the old girl are severely lacking and I'd rather not have a fire... Good luck if you choose to go that route, HTH some. Dave
  10. I'll have to go through Staniforth's book again with a fresh set of eyes. In his defense it was one of my last reads and after Adam's Basics and multiple Smith advanced books much seemed redundant. I'll review the link thanks for posting it up.
  11. Nice work Omar! Things are really looking good.
  12. Ackerman itself is pretty simple to sort. The other thread had some good posts and "Chassis Engineering" has a great write up on it as well as the rest of the chassis. I have and have read a bunch of them and Herb Adam's is hands down the best for basics. Carroll Smith's series is next on the list for advanced stuff. All the rest are a few good points here and there all IMO as a disclaimer. I'll see if I can get a chance to post some of that basic information. I highly recommend Adam's book as a must have for basic understanding from this stuff to cage design and chassis stiffness. Not a how-to but all the sound basic theory to get you there. You'll have to watch as steering points get moved for ideal Ackerman to not upset bump steer. Up and down doesn't really matter on the Ackerman just getting it right in relation to the kingpin pivot line relative to the center of the hypothetical rear axle. So a line from outer steering joint through kingpin pivot ideally lands at the center of the rear differential (if it's centered) outboard is less that ideal past center is more. Slow speeds I think "perfect/ideal" is the goal. Other applications might mess with it to band-aid issues. I wiil design for center of rear or ideal which minimizes scrubbing any tire for turning a different radius as both front tires are now turning the same angle as vehicle travel. If you start to push, get loose or drift that is no longer true since the car isn't turning the same as steering. If the car is going to spend a lot of time with one of those conditions setting Ackerman to match conditions is possibly a better option. If I can time to get that program loaded up entering the points would be simple enough. I'd probably start with the lower arm coordinates then move to the arm location to optimized Ackerman and steering. Hopefully the program will show any dynamic changes. Steering effort issue will likely be try and see but with the power rack will probably be a non-issue for you. I'm not planning on a power rack so it could be a problem for me.
  13. Very nicely done! I really like the sway bar implementation and will "borrow" that idea if I can make it happen. Clean quality work. I'll enjoy following your build TUME.
  14. While I believe your are right in the "ideal" setup and intend to go that route on my car (it's a mess up there from multiple impacts and rust plus the engine swap so all the structure is getting replaced anyway.) For that to really work correctly wheels large enough to hold the whole outer end would be needed and a full inner structure with all new arms, rack, knuckles, coilovers, etc. Would be necessary. A build like this where the existing setup is already there and very sound - tearing the whole front end apart for a complete redesign is probably not worth the effort. At best the entire upper structure has to be redone most likely lowers and rack too. Longer lower arms should help but bring all the same issues and more. This double joint idea is simply a long virtual arm. Advantage would be getting the effective long arm without messing with crazy brake/hub/knuckle offsets or maybe impossible parts. Potential disadvantages I see are extra leverage on the steering to move the compounded outer end and not sure what the thing would be like dynamically. Just thinking out loud here, hopefully the discussion helps anyone considering this myself included.
×