zgeezer

During the past 4 years of crawling over JYs, searching for wrecked 240s, I've been impressed by the large number of times I've seen deep side intrusions into the driver's or passenger's side, pushing the door right into someone's lap. A large number of times the z would be folded right behind the seats, in line with the rear door jam. I built a 6 point "roll bar" out of thick wall tubing about 2 inches in diameter. The hoop is positioned about 2 inches behind the back floor, in just about the same location as the storage bins, welded to angle iron, welded to the body and then capped at the floor level with a square pad welded to both the hoop and the floor. The hoop is tied together from right to left with one straight level tube running just above the floor. It is hidden from the side view by the Datsun chrome back side window frame. Two straight bars run from the back of the hoop directly to the floor in the back, just shy of the plastic back panel over the rear lights. These are straight runs that clear the plastic side panels, but are hidden from the rear and the side by the quarter panels. The front door bars are positioned down on the hoop to a point below the door line and extend forward to the floor board/firewall intersect. They are welded to the inside of the door sill, welded to a square piece of .125 steel plate that is bolted and welded to the floor board. With the doors closed, nothing is readily visible from the back or side. However, as the door bars are straight they do impede quick entry or exit. At least for anyone who weighs more than 155#. This setup probably does not meet the criteria of any race sanctioning body, but I do have a stiffer body and some sense of security that there is something other than sheet metal between my butt and the bumper of some SUV. Accidents happen. In my opinion something is far better than nothing as far as cages and roll bars are concerned. g g

Two matters come to mind: 1. the sx calipers allow simple fully functional parking brakes using your stock cables and two extension links and 2. a stock rotor means you or your shop can replace it without looking for a machinist. g

Two matters come to mind: 1. A fully functional hassle free parking brake, using your Z's cable and 2. A rear rotor that you can replace anywhere anytime without looking for a machine shop. g

Tony Thanks for the link. The 4.8 truck bores are too small and will not clear the valves or so I've been told by a shop selling AFR, but the same source "thinks" the 5.3 is ok. I will contact AFR. The truck intake is too tall, but that can be cured by either swapping over to an LS1 intake.... and that is not entirely w/o problems of its own or pretending I own a '73 240 Z with an overheating problem and cut a BFH in the hood and cover it with something resembling the hood vent Datsun sold over the counter in '73 or so. It looks like a scoop, but vents to each side. g

I have a little over 3K to upgrade my 2002 LM7 (5.3L) GEN III truck engine that will be in my Z in another month or so. The engine has only 20,000 miles, so I expect everything to be in excellent shape. It is rated at 285 hp, uses the smaller intake valves (around 1.9") than the Ls1 and has smaller combustion chambers than the LS1 (around 62cc as against 66cc or so). This drops the C/R down into 9 something from the 10 plus of the LS1 I have a chance to buy the new 205 AFR heads and a GMPP HOT cam and springs for the LS1 at a reasonable price. The AFR heads are CNC ported with 2.02 intake valves and are real works of art, but they also have 66cc combustion chambers and I think the loss the compression may offset any other gains they might offer over the stock LM7 heads. One of the design parameters for my Z is that it be an honest middle 11 second car that can and will be driven everywhere. I expected to do this with a mild cam and a supercharger. I would sure appreciate some input, because if these heads and cam work, it will save me a bundle on hood modifications and allow me to look just a little more stock. g

The camaro/firebird pans will work. The truck versions are rear sump, but the sump is deeeeeep and would certainly drag on any obstacle higher than a flattened Foster's can. But, if you have fabrication skills the truck pan might be usable. I purchased my camaro pan off E-bay and paid $75.00 for pan, gasket holder, and oil pump "pipe" to fit. g

There are LOTS of small differences. Generally, there will be wide swapability between all years of the 240Z. Less between the 260 and 280 versions. If restoration is your goal, then forget any '73 parts and stick to your '70. And there are a number of other websites that will help you in a restoration. Here are three differences that would not bother any one seeking hybrid vigor (viagra?): Emergency cables: the 70's are lighter and smaller in diameter than your 73. Vapor recovery tank: Yep, think smog and it's located behind the passenger side rear trim. This is a white plastic tank that will survive about 48 hours in our southwest sun and it is unique. Nothing else will fit without some fabrication (cut, burn, weld, and grind). It is also expensive to replace unless you find one in a pull apart jy. Front Hubs, bearings & brake rotors: At least three different offsets. This means you c/n use your 73 hub with a 70 brake disk (rotor) and vice versa. Wish you luck, which ever way you go. g

Hmmmmm. We do go through a quart of oil every 1500-2000 miles on the 426/7 and had chalked it up to valve guides. The 347/302 we played with before was real oil guzzler. The 331/302 is so sweet and affordable that I wonder why any gearhead would ever do a complete 302 rebuild w/o stroking it. g

I need some advice. I bought a 2002 LM7 Chevy truck engine for my swap with the intention of bolting on a positive displacement blower. Either a screw type or something based upon Eaton rotating parts. These are popular with the pickup truck crowd. I've just about the funds to purchase. The problem that two nationally distributed magazines have published results that would almost indicate that this class of blower really does not perform. One magazine (I think Hot Rod or Car Craft) ran a comparison of a Turbo, a belt driven centrifugal blower and a MagnaCharger. The centrifugal blowers outperformed the MagnaCharger to the extent that the magazine spent 1/2 page falling all over themselves apologizing for their tests. The other was a bolt on test installing another positive displacement blower with an intercooler on the new ls1 powered Pontiac GTO. It that test, the blown GTO was only marginally quicker than the unblown stocker and got slower as it heated up. My z will be a driver, not a racer, and being the quickest gun in town is not my goal. Still, I don't want to drop $3-4 big ones and not be running at least 1 second quicker in the 1/4. Anyone out there have real life experience with the screw or Eaton based blowers? Thanks, G

If your block is a roller 302 and you intend on a total rebuild, then I suggest you look over the 331 stroker kits (Coast Mustang's come to mind). This is a nice package and a great compromise between size, light weight and cubic inches. If you must have 400+ ci, then the 351 will do it, but if your choice is between a 351 and a 331, I'd take the 331. I've driven both the 331 and the 427 (Stroked 351, really 426) in early Falcons and the only, repeat, ooonly advantage to the bigger engine was about .3 of a second: 10.84 vs 11.12. g

1. Yes & No. An LS1 manifold will bolt to the heads, but the LS1 manifold is much lower than the truck and there are issues with the MAP sensor interfering with the accessory drive belt. Not a real big problem, but something to be aware of. Go to Street & Performance's website (Google mena Street and performance) somewhere around "hotrodlane.com". They have done a number of swaps with this engine. Buy their CD on LS1 engines. It will tell you all. 2. Iron block and on early models iron heads as well. 3. All GENIII heads flow well and all can be fitted with the 2.0 intake valves. I believe most versions (300hp) of the 6.0 truck engine will have more combustion chamber volume. 4. Something around 9.4 CR. 5. Go look at Ls1tech.com or other LS1 websites. They all have a truck section. LQ4, Texas, Oklahoma, and superchargers all seem to be a common constellation. 6. Trucks mount all their accessories in a different fashion than LS1s and the high end recent Cadillacs with the 6.0 have higher compression, aluminum heads, and about 340 rated HP. 7. Finally, don't even think about using the truck pan for a swap into a Z, it has a deep, deep, deep rear sump that will probably not clear the first beer can you straddle. Might work for drag only, but not practical for the street. Use an "F" body pan instead. g

CarQuest had all the bearings, but the one Nissan refers to as the 'pilot bearing". This is a ball bearing unit next to the u-joint yoke. This I could find only at Courtesy Nissan in Texas: something around $40.00. The CarQuest units were all identical to the OEM Nissan units and about 50% of the cost. By identical, I mean the races were stamped with the same number and maker. (I think "NSK"). Do a search on "stainless steel" "bushings" and "lsd" on this forum. There's a fair sized thread with names, sources, and sizes of stainless steel seamless tube. g

Any one know any vendor that sells this item? g

This weekend I installed a clutch style LSD out of an 89 Turbo R200 into my 3:36 R200. If you have 10 stainless steel bushings (10mmID/12mmOD, I think) it is a straight bolt in. I bought the bushings from a HYBRIDZ member. I took photos of the process and if I ever learn how to post, I'll send them up. The joy of small wrecking lots out in the desert is everything shows up sooner or later. Yep, got the Knell book, went out the the local boneyard, pulled both the 3:36 R200 and the brackets in an afternoon. Paid $50.00 and figured that collecting all the parts would be easy. Took another 3 years to find a 89Turbo LSD. Still paid only $75.00. By the way, if anyone out there is interested, I have a line on a long neck R200 in an Infinity M30. These are advertised with LSD, but another member reports no lsd, but four spider gears. I've no idea of the ratio. g

I just pulled a 240sx gas tank and I believe that with a little trim here and there that it may fit under my Z. However, is there any procedure to safely cut and weld gas tanks? g

If you are really married to the idea of a high revving 302 and are on a budget, then move over to the "other" V8 forum and look at 5.0L Fords. Light weight, plentiful, roller camshafts, and they make great HP. Really great HP if you use aftermarket heads. g

The Gen III truck shares basic architecture with the LS1 engine in the states. There are differences. 1. The truck engine pan sump is rear mounted and verrry deep. Unless you have a pure drag car and 2 inches or so clearance between the sump and the ground is acceptable, you will have to swap the pan for a passenger car of some sort. In the states that would be a "F" bodied GM product: Camaro/Firebird. Pontiac's GTO over here is some version of a Holden, over there. That sump is front mounted like a stateside Ford. I don't know if that sump would clear the Zed's crossmember. 2. The truck Gen III in the states mounts it's accessories high on the driver's side. [The AC compressor over here is mounted down low on the passenger side in both the "F" cars and the trucks. 3. The plastic intake manifold for trucks sits at least 3 inches higher than the "F" cars and the Corvettes. It might interfere with the stock hood. 4. The bolt pattern for the intake manifolds are the same between the truck and passenger car. But the truck mounts it's accessories forward about 3/4 of an inch further than the passenger cars. Compare the crankshaft pulley of a GEN III truck with that of a GEN III passenger car and you will see the difference. 5. If you use the corvette engine mounts and the corvette isolaters, you can mount the front of the engine with little more than on single strap running behind the existing cross member. For more information, I suggest you use the search function for the following: "LS1 headers" and "LS1 motor mounts" , and "LS1". The forum has a wealth of information from folks who have actually done the LS1 swap rather than someone like me who has the GEN III truck engine on a stand and will go in sometime in the next month. g

Yep, that's the one. g

Does anyone have a photo of the Datsun optional hood that had a wide "bulge" about the middle with two horizontal slots running lengthwise on both sides of the "bulge". This appears not to be a "scoop", but more of an attempt to vent off underhood heat. There used to be a very short thread on this forum about this hood. If there is one for sale, I'd like to hear about it. Otherwise, I would like a photograph or two that might allow me to fabricate someting very similar from fiberglas. Thanks. g

Early 240Z's had only one strut on the back. Later model Zs (I think commencing with '72 or so) had two struts. Depending upon your application and desire to maintain the Series I "trunk" vents, you might consider swapping a later 240Z hatch and then fabricating the passenger side body anchor for the strut. I suspect that some research at a parts house might locate a gas filled strut for another application that might be a bit more robust and bit more "pushy" than the stock Datsun's. g

I'm installing a 2002 LM7(5.3 truck engine: rated 290 HP or so) GenIII engine and transmission in my 240. This will be a cruiser and long distance driver. R200, 3:31 or so rear gears, 205 x 75 x14 tires (Stock 280zxt wheels and tires.) Sanderson 1.5 primary block huggers. My design performance parameters started out as !00+ and sub 13 seconds in 1/4 mile. I'm confident I can do this with this combination and a reasonable cam. Money however is an issue. My knee jerk consideration was to pop in a 2002 LS6 cam and springs and be done with it. However, my brother (A lover of all things Ford Blue; a believer in the value of Desktop Dyno; and the builder of a street licensed and driveable 10.8 1/4 mile Falcon) just advised me that his Desktop dyno predicts that an LS1 cam will pull more average torque from 2000-4,500 than the Ls6. The cam specifications for the LS6 , ASA, and HOT cams are as follows: 204/218 .555/.551 117.5 LS6 "'02+ LS6" ; 219/228 .525/.525 112 LS6/918 "HOT Cam" ; 226/236 .525/.525 110 918/921 "ASA Cam" LS1 cams are inexpensive and if I could meet my performance parameters with a LS1 cam, I'd do it. Can anyone out there confirm that an LS1 cam would produce more average torque from 2000 through 5000 rpm than the Ls6? Frankly, it just doesn't sound right. Thanks. g

A technical side bar or editor's comments to letters in Hemming's magazine this month mentioned electrolysis as an effective means of removing rust from small parts. The recipe seems to be a couple of cups of laundry detergent in a plastic pail filled with H20. Hook the negative end of your battery charger to the piece and the positive to a piece of stainless steel. Submerge both in the laundry detergent solution and walk away for a few hours. This editor's comment was in response to some reader's letter thanking them for writing about MOLASSES as a rust remover. Is there any thing to all of this? g

Thanks folks. I don't know why my search w/n pick up on the STI/WRX. Santa's little elves will be visiting our favorite JYs this weekend. g

No Luck! I really do know the value of back up and hard copy print for useful threads. I really regret not printing the photos and adding it to my Hybridz information binder. We learn the hard way. I've searched every combination I could find, but nothing comes up for me on the WRX/STI rack installation. If any of you have downloaded that thread and have hard copies, would you please pm me. g