Brad-ManQ45

Actually, the stock coil from a 300ZXT is supposed to be great...and cheap at the JY...

Turbonetics supplied my watercooled/S-3 Trim/clipped turbine for my ZXT in '94 and no probs - runs strong. Nowadays I would chose the T4OE 50 Trim... Check out this thead at zcar.com: http://www.zcar.com/forums/read.php?f=1&i=441532&t=441532

If he was gonna do the MS to control extra injectors - which will have distribution problems, he might as well use it to replace the ECU and upgrade his injectors.

Bummer, but don't give up!

If you wait about 20 minutes w/hood up, does it start/idle ok?

Flux core is NOT cleaner.

Since this is for a 377, then he will need to use bearing spacers for the 350 crank and no prob. w/the 350 rods. Might want to check the valve reliefs in the pistons and use a thicker head gasket than normal....

The only consideration is the tach - which is next to useless on the digital dash anyway - ask me - I just swaped to analog and love it. Shouldn't be a big problem - go for it.

Perusing prior posts by some of the turbo guys with stock ECU system, they'r rich to ~4500 RPM and then go lean. If you REALLY want more power and boost, you need to upgrade the Fuel management computer. At the least the 300ZX unit next step would be the JWT 440cc/Ford Mass AIR system. My money will be on either MegaSquirt or UltraMegaSquirt or SDS - preferably the UMS. (I like to do it myself)

They are definitely not BBS or Rial wheels. If look, you will notice the machine screw used to hold the lug cover/centercap assembly on. I have some Prime wheels that use the same method. (I also have BBS and Rial wheels for my Q45)

start your weld on the flange, and only dip down onto the pipe enough to keep a puddle there. About 60-70 % of your heat should be directed at the flange...

IO'm going to twin turbo mine...I don't want or need the first gear in the 4L60E/700R4...

I DID mean 4L85E - the newest equivalent to a Turbo 400 w/OD. 2.48 first gear instead of 3.36 or something around there... Increased torque capacity and more efficient than the 4L80E...

Halfway there - congrats!

I knew you were on top of it , but I just wanted anyone else looking to make their own mounts be aware of the engineering that went into the JTR Z system that somehow needs to be duplicated for the ZX. You had the thickness angle covered by what you stated - it was the moving of the drivers side attachment to the chevy mount that wasn't covered. Someone really SHOULD start to make the mounts for this other than MSA - I REALLY don't like the idea of using the Datsun engine mounts... Thanks for clearing it up for everyone down the line. By the way, I think the post title should be renamed Fabricating 280ZX mounts for future searches...are you with me FL83280ZX?

I want the 4L85E! I like the 1st gear ratio a lot better on the light car...

I hope Grumpyvette will chime in here, but I believe that most racers would rather use the two bolt block and put splayed caps on it. Barring that, they'd rather just have the 2 bolt instead of the 4 bolt. Something about the webbing being stronger that the splayed caps don't compromise I think....? I can't remember where I picked this up, I've always been a 351C/429/460 Ford Fan myself. I will have to say this one rides the fence on which forum - someone interested in a 400 block would surely like to hear about it, but it is indeed relatively rare nowadays to find one. If it hasn't been OB'd it would be a find - 4 bolts or not! I say give him the benefit of the doubt Flash...

I have both JTR manuals and no, the EFI does not pertain to the Z at all. I personally would not get the manual knowing this. It does point out hoses and ducting and pointers on transmissions and the speedo, but you can get that anywhere and peruse cars at the junkyard for ducting. JTR will work w/LT1. John's Cars has a kit for the LS1. Others have fabricated their own mounts for the LS1: http://www.geocities.com/maichor75104/index.html

Anyone had any experience w/P.A.W. short block/engine kits? Considering buiding it myself (done several before, ford, capri, chevy). How is their machining. Assuming I can get it exactly the way I want it, is this a viable method of obtaining good machined blocks?

As a purely academic question spdsk8tr (and lease don't take my questioning the wrong way), did you make any provision for offsetting the engine to the passenger side? My reason for asking is that w/the JTR mounts, the drivers' side provides for an offset of ~3/4" to the passenger side of the car. Viewing the JTR manual, the chevy mount on the driver's side is move 1" toward the bottom of the mount as compared to the datsun mount holes. Due to the angle that the plate is at when bolted to the Chevy Engine, I can see that this would move the engine over a certain amount and maintain it level side to side (or am I just assuming this also?) Both Z & ZX use the same motor mounts, and by looking at the MSA system, they use the stock datsun mounts and leave the Chevy mount off - simple spacers. I personally don't think that the datsun mounts were designed for the HP and (esp) torque of the SB, so I definitely think that spacers utilizing the chevy mount is the way to go, however - the offset ? bothers me. JTR all said and done has a total of 1 9/16" (1.831") for spacer & setback plate thickness w/no offset on the pass. side. The driver's side has a total thickness of 2 9/16" (2.831") with the aforementioned 3/4" offset to the passenger side. The amount the engine is moved down on the drivers side in relation to the motor mount position seems to 'even out' the difference in spacer height, therefor the engine is level side to side. Assuming your memory of your measurements is accurate (driver's side so close that it doesn't bear mentioning and passenger withing 1/4" between both systems discussed), then there appears to be a distance gap involved (heightwise and between where the chevy mounting bolts line up in relation to the engine mount towers. With straight spacers the specified (and seemingly correct height) and no offset on the driver's side, it would seem that the engine would be centered in the car, and likely the engine would not be level 'side to side'. I am simply trying to visualise how just spacers would work without that offset on the driver's side... Inquiring minds want to know! I personally wil keep my '83 ZXT turbo'd - the '75 is for a V8 - but I'm gonna do my own crossmember for wicherver engine I choose and not go JTR (if not LS1) because I want as much room in the engine compartment as possible for accessories and turbos. Beside - it will look cleaner! Once again, I personally do not think much of the MSA kit for the ZX (haven't seen for the Z) because a V* should be using motor mounts designed for IT - not another engine. There is too much engineering that the car companies go through for NVH to toally discount so flagrantly, not to mention sheer stoutness-wise in this case.

I heard that if you have that scoop, you have to have the chicken that goes with it...

For the ZX, you sould only have to make the mount like the spacers JTR uses with the additional width of the setback plate.

For the engine, you only need the spacers made that are th width of the spacers in the JTR manual + the width of the setback plates. Not sure about tranny mount....

Forget TBI - now look at 1 or 2 posts on this same subject within the past 2 days...

You should be able to hear it running after you shut off the engine...